2
0

Angry Republicans


 invite response                
2005 Sep 27, 3:18am   15,113 views  51 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

If you're a rich Republican, and you want to get even richer, you have to play along with a little trick on the workers in the red states.

For decades now, those workers have seen their pay fall at the same time that their CEOs have seen their pay skyrocket. CEO pay is coming straight out of the pockets of the workers. The real insult is that the CEO's tax bill has been cut dramatically by the Republican Party, while the tax rate on the workers has not.

How did Republicans get large numbers of working people to give away even more of their hard-earned money to the rich?

The trick is to get those workers very angry - at someone else. This distracts them from what's really going on. Karl Rove understands this clearly, so he stokes the anger of ordinary workers. He makes them angry about abortion, evolution, flag burning, France, gays, guns, liberals, newspapers, "rich Democrats", school prayer, anything, anything except the one thing that would make their lives better: fair taxes on passive income, income the rich get for doing nothing at all.

The Republican party, sensing an opportunity to steer all debate away from the grossly unfair distribution of wealth, happily encourages the resentment of the working classes against the “liberals” and anyone else who talks about fairness.

Investors pay much lower tax rates on money they get from doing no work at all than workers pay on money they get from real work. Long-term capital gains tax is 15%, but most people pay 28% taxes on money they work for.

The amazing thing is, workers really take to that anger. They like it, and it makes sense to them. But they're not angry at what they think they're angry about. They think they're angry because some faggoty liberal or lesbian is telling them how bad they are, and making them say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Sure, that's part of it, but it's the smaller part. Mostly, they're angry because they come to the same crappy jobs every day and see their lives slipping away in meaninglessness, and they know they've lost the American game, but they don't know why. They feel really bad about themselves. They feel like losers. They are losers, because the rich are taking more of the pie and the workers are voting to make it even worse.

The core of this manipulation is to attribute negative feelings to others. Tell the workers that anyone who wants to fairly tax the rich "has contempt for the workers," "is disgusted by you," and the favorite: "they hate you." Attribute negative feelings, over and over. Just ignore reality and claim you know the inner feeling of your enemies. This is also the main psychological mechanism of manipulation in the Koran, by the way. Perhaps Bush learned something from his Saudi friends after all.

Republicans manipulate voter emotions by talking about patriotism, Jesus, and values, but all they ever actually do is start wars and cut taxes on the very rich, making sure the workers have no chance to catch up. Democrats are not so great either since they lost their way and started acting like Republicans, but at least there's hope they will remember they once stood for fairness. There are a lot more poor people than rich people, and the poor could easily vote to make things fair.

About a third of those earning less than $15,000 per year are the angry Republicans. That's enough to swing the election against their own interests. They vote over and over to elect rich Republicans who keep cutting taxes on themselves, while cutting Medicare and Social Security for the workers who elected them. Like Bush said in The Onion, "They help us stay rich, and in return, we help them stay poor."

It would be funny to watch the poor vote for their own poverty, if it were not so sad.

#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 51       Last »     Search these comments

1   Patrick   2005 Oct 9, 2:11pm  

They both take money, but the Democrats take it from the rich, and then spend it on education and medical care for everyone.

The Republicans take money from the poor, and spend it on yachts and private planes for themselves.

2   Patrick   2005 Oct 10, 2:35pm  

We do have excellent medical care for the rich in America - and long waits and crappy conditions for the poor.

Ah wait, there is actually part of the US medical system that is fair. It's called Medicare. And it's socialized medicine. And it works. I know, since my parents both have cancer and could not otherwise afford treatment.

Of course Republicans are trying to cut that and every other benefit to the poor, but that is what Republicans are all about, so I don't know why I bother to mention it.

3   Patrick   2005 Oct 11, 2:40pm  

If you empower the rich too much, we all become slaves while the rich drive in special car pool lanes and buy imported goods at private billionaire-only stores. Sound similar to your argument? It is.

At some level of disgusting inequality, it is morally wrong NOT to redistribute money. America is approaching that level.

I don't want to make everything equal and poor, I just want to give everyone a fair chance to get rich.

To do that, the minimum is good public schools and good public health care, both of which are being gutted by Republicans.

4   Patrick   2005 Nov 13, 1:37pm  

The Republicans consist of two parts:

1. the rich
2. the poor who have been fooled into voting for tax cuts for the rich

I assume you're in the second part.

Patrick

5   Patrick   2005 Nov 25, 4:16am  

Massachusettes Native, you may want to look past the Republican anger that you have adopted. A Republican is someone whose feelings are manipulated so skillfully that they end up voting for the exact same people who are causing him pain. And he thinks that this is derived from this own thought and judgement. It is really sad.

Patrick

6   Patrick   2005 Nov 25, 10:52am  

Thanks for the historylearningsite.co.uk link. It is interesting to see that Republicanism goes up with income, which makes sense for the rich. The amazing thing is those poor Republicans who were critical in electing someone who is against their own interests.

I'm sorry you're suffering from so much Republican anger. It must be very painful.

Patrick

7   Patrick   2005 Dec 14, 2:28pm  

Why do angry Republicans have such poor spelling?

I'm pretty sure it's related, but not sure how.

Patrick

8   Patrick   2005 Dec 15, 1:56pm  

The richer people are, the more they vote Republican. Check out the table our Republican friend above pointed out:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/voting_patterns_in_the_2004_elec.htm

The myth of "rich Democrats" is just one more way you, my friend, are fooled into voting to transfer money from your children's education to your CEO's private plane refueling costs. I'm sorry you will stay poor, and never figure out the game.

I think a general lack of attention to detail is the explanation for why poor Republicans can't spell.

9   Patrick   2005 Dec 29, 3:02pm  

Resentment is the core feeling of Republicanism. You hit it exactly.

You may be a nice person, but my point is that it's that very resentment that keeps you voting Republican, not the issues.

If you're rich, then lowering your taxes at the expense of everyone else makes a lot of sense. If you're not, then it makes no sense to vote for a party that talks about moral issues, but acts only when capital gains tax cuts are at stake.

Patrick

10   Different Sean   2006 Feb 2, 9:05pm  

I just got this nice letter from Mike Moore:

2/3/06

Friends,

How would you like to be in my next movie? I know you've probably heard I'm making a documentary about the health care industry (but the HMOs don't know this, so don't tell them -- they think I'm making a romantic comedy).

If you've followed my work over the years, you know that I keep a pretty low profile while I'm making my movies. I don't give interviews, I don't go on TV and I don't defrost my refrigerator. I do keep my website updated on a daily basis (there's been something like 4,000,000 visitors just this week alone) and the rest of the time I'm... well, I can't tell you what I'm doing, but you can pretty much guess. It gets harder and harder sneaking into corporate headquarters, but I've found that just dying my hair black and wearing a skort really helps.

Back to my invitation to be in my movie. Have you ever found yourself getting ready to file for bankruptcy because you can't pay your kid's hospital bill, and then you say to yourself, "Boy, I sure would like to be in Michael Moore's health care movie!"?

Or, after being turned down for the third time by your HMO for an operation they should be paying for, do you ever think to yourself, "Now THIS travesty should be in that 'Sicko' movie!"?

Or maybe you've just been told that your father is going to have to just, well, die because he can't afford the drugs he needs to get better -- and it's then that you say, "Damn, what did I do with Michael Moore's home number?!"

OK, here's your chance. As you can imagine, we've got the goods on these crooks. All we need now is to put a few of you in the movie and let the world see what the greatest country ever in the history of the universe does to its own people, simply because they have the misfortune of getting sick. Because getting sick, unless you are rich, is a crime -- a crime for which you must pay, sometimes with your own life.

About four hundred years from now, historians will look back at us like we were some sort of barbarians, but for now we're just the laughing stock of the Western world.

So, if you'd like me to know what you've been through with your insurance company, or what it's been like to have no insurance at all, or how the hospitals and doctors wouldn't treat you (or if they did, how they sent you into poverty trying to pay their crazy bills) ...if you have been abused in any way by this sick, greedy, grubby system and it has caused you or your loved ones great sorrow and pain, let me know.

Send me a short, factual account of what has happened to you -- and what IS happening to you right now if you have been unable to get the health care you need. Send it to michael@michaelmoore.com. I will read every single one of them (even if I can't respond to or help everyone, I will be able to bring to light a few of your stories).

Thank you in advance for sharing them with me and trusting me to try and do something about a very corrupt system that simply has to go.

Oh, and if you happen to work for an HMO or a pharmaceutical company or a profit-making hospital and you have simply seen too much abuse of your fellow human beings and can't take it any longer -- and you would like the truth to be told -- please write me at michael@michaelmoore.com. I will protect your privacy and I will tell the world what you are unable to tell. I am looking for a few heroes with a conscience. I know you are out there.

Thank you, all of you, for your help and your continued support through the years. I promise you that with "Sicko" we will do our best to give you not only a great movie, but a chance to bring down this evil empire, once and for all.

In the meantime, stay well. I hear fruits and vegetables help.

Yours,
Michael Moore
michael@michaelmoore.com
www.michaelmoore.com

11   Phil   2006 Feb 16, 11:04am  

Outsourcing in a different way is happening with the Healthcare system. People will travel to Asian Sub continents to get Surgeries and other Medical needs that they cannot get here. This is already happening in trickles but when a mass exodus happens, thats when people will realize and start cribbing just like they do about Outsourcing now.

Iraq was a mistake, admit it and move on, instead of spending more on it... Iran is going to be the next mistake....

13   Different Sean   2006 Feb 26, 3:26pm  

How did Democrats get large numbers of working people to give away even more of their hard-earned money to the rich?

immigrant

Because the Republican Federal govt is the one who sets Federal income taxes and makes tax cuts? Perhaps the Democrat state govts publicly opposed such moves? But they clearly don't have the power to do anything about it, because it is outside their jurisdiction?

Unless you put the question of tax cuts to a national referendum for a decision rather than the govt just announcing it, they were gong to go ahead... Remember Bush saying to a bunch of rich twats, "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

14   Soldalma   2006 Feb 27, 1:43am  

I would much rather have rich people take my money and buy yachts than have Democrats use my money to subsidize socialized medicine, for several reasons.

1) The rich can only get my money if I agree to give it to them. If I decide to spend money on Coca-Cola or in an airplane ticket and the shareholders of Coca-Cola or American Airlines make money, that was my choice. The government takes my money by force. If I don`t pay I go to jail.

2) If the rich buy yachts and other luxury goods there are people working building yachts and other luxury goods who make an honest living. They have dignity. The money that goes in taxes feeds corrupt, lazy and callous bureacrats that cannot be fired.

3) The American people are better off having honest jobs and paying for their health insurance out of their pockets than being unemployed due to high taxes and receiving hand-outs from the Democrats.

I think it is a clear choice.

15   yodaking   2006 Mar 8, 5:12pm  

Patrick, I think you would be interested to know that the poor already pay little to no taxes. So when the GOP supported tax cuts, they will not get a large payoff.

So when you have a tax cut, it stands to reason that if you don't pay any or much taxes - you won't get a bigger refund.

Here are stats from IRS.gov

The top 1 percent of tax payers paid, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues.

The top 10 percent of tax payers paid 65.84 percent, or 2/3 of all taxes

The top 25 percent pay 83.5% of all taxes

The next 25 percent sahre 12.5% of the total tax burden for a total of 96%

The bottom half of America (the poor and disadvantaged that you refer to Patrick) how much of the tax burden do they share? (they make less then 26,000 a year)

3.5%

16   Randy H   2006 Mar 11, 2:56am  

as wrote [sic] by: “Liberals are Dumb Says”
excellant [sic] post and nick name.

Ironic, in an argument about the asserted causality between intelligence, logic and one's political alignment. I'm sorry, correlations. Correlations are not causality, but then again intelligent people know this.

17   Randy H   2006 Mar 11, 12:29pm  

The supposed income-level correlation is very weak, much weaker of a statistical predictor of political affiliation than one's zodiac sign in fact. The r-squared for these studies is very unconvincing. For a remedial read on what "correlation" means, and how to interpret it:

www.dartmouth.edu/~mss/data%20analysis/Volume%20II%20pdf/300%20Correlation.pdf

One of the posited reasons for the change in this "common wisdom", from the Pew Research Center:

The value gaps for the GOP are, perhaps surprisingly, greatest with respect to the role of government. The Republicans' bigger tent now includes more lower-income voters than it once did, and many of these voters favor an activist government to help working class people. Government regulation to protect the environment is an issue with particular potential to divide Republicans.

(***disclaimer, I have a very close friend who is a Congressional Chief of Staff who has helped many of Republican get elected to the House. He is very quick to counter common misconceptions).

18   yodaking   2006 Mar 12, 4:10pm  

I think the largest area that the GOP has failed it is actually the exact opposite of Patrick's assertion. The GOP is that they no longer stand for a fiscally conservative policy. The cornerstone of the GOP is smaller government, and fiscal restraint. The Bush administration and the GOP Senate/Congress has increased the size of federal spending by almost 50% in the past 5 years. Almost every social welfare program has received in increase in spending. The very programs that are there to "fight poverty"

This increase in entitlement spending runs contrary to the very foundation conservatives believe in. (teach a man who to fish, don' give him a fish...) In essence, Bush and Company are doing a better job at being big spending democrats (on the domestic front) then any democrat can ever be.

However, instead of tax and spend, it's borrow spend. Nobody can truly know however, how much economic stimulus tax cuts brought versus increased tax receipts - though I'm sure some economist has a chart with possible overlapped predicted trends. So before democrats hound the tax cuts - don't forget Reagan tax's cuts doubled tax receipt in a time of stagflation..(he also increased spending however)

Democrats cannot seize on the fiscal irresponsibility notion since government restraint is not their MO (before anybody bring up Clinton, don't forget how many times government shut down because of the bi-partisan budget)

Which forces me to conclude the only way the GOP can come up with a responsible budget is if there is a Democrat in the White House which saddens me since it appears only partisan maneuvering is the only thing that bring on a sane budget.

19   Randy H   2006 Mar 13, 3:26am  

Paul Chua,

You are onto the core issue. The GOP has become a very successful coalition of fiscal conservatives -- which tend to be above-working-class -- and social conservatives, which are more largely working class. This was the Reagan genius. However, this coalition is an uneasy one which is becoming strained because of fiscal policy.

Current political common-wisdom holds that the fiscal conservative crowd tend to be socially all over the map. Many don't mind generous social entitlements, because they are rich and don't mind helping out. Many despise large government in all its forms, and would rather let the private sector hand out aid. Some even think all forms of aid are in and of themselves evil. But, they don't generally fear restrictive social conservative agendas (like limitations on abortion, homosexuality, etc.) because they don't feel affected by it. With means, one can dodge most social prohibitions. The rich and well off can get their drugs, have their abortions even if they have to fly to Europe to do it, hire lawyers to protect their interests even if they're gay, even find their way to quiet, discrete euthanasia.

The other side of the GOP camp, while very dedicated to creating a more wholesome society, is anything but fiscally conservative. They tend to have starkly Keynesian attitudes (even if they don't know it by name), are quick to demonize rich corporations, especially foreign ones, and are the fiercest defenders of programs like farm subsidization, trade barriers, medicare, and any other type of "non-big-city" welfare. The uneasy truce comes insofar as, while they are not motivated by the fiscal conservatives' arguments, they are tolerant of the idea that a free-market gives them a chance of a better future too.

But with limits. Witness the ports deal backlash, or more locally, the attempts by midwestern farmers to keep out Dutch dairy farming competitors. Fiscal conservatives champion foreign competition. It only helps the US be stronger. Social conservatives see such foreign competition as a threat to their value system and way of life.

All that said, the Democrats are a mess, without unity, and wholly undeserving leadership. There is virtue in being the loyal opposition. The Democrats missed this opportunity. They would do the system a huge favor by just folding up and letting a dozen "3rd parties" flower.

20   yodaking   2006 Mar 14, 5:06am  

Upstater, thank you for your comments.

While the direction of the country is very subjective, (in terms of whether it's going in the right/wrong direction) could you elaborate on how the GOP "elites" are robbing America or how Americans have been lied to?

Thanks

21   Mike/a.k.a.Sage   2006 Apr 29, 3:44pm  

Patrick is 100% right. He must have read one of my earlier comments about distraction and misinformation by the media.

The sheeple are told what to think and are not capable of making up their own minds.

Advertise and analyze the facts.

1) The majority of Americans, more than 50% of them, earn less today than they did 5 years ago. The economy is booming for the minority, not the majority. The tax cuts are the reason.

2) The economy is booming because of the housing bubble, not the tax cuts.

3) The top 20% of wage earners earn 60% of all the income. This leaves 40% of the income thats left, for the bottom 80% of wage earners. This is because illegal immigration and out-sourcing makes it impossible for the bottom 80% of wage earners to compete for higher wages. Discuss.

4) The top 5% of the wealthiest people in this country own 75% of all the wealth. They should be paying 75% of all the taxes, don't you think?

5) Corporations now contribute 7% to the revenues collected by the federal government. Before Regan they contributed 32%. Oh and, more than 50% of all stocks are owned by only 1% of the population. Who do you think wrote the tax laws to get their portion down?

I know how difficult it is for normal people understand or even remember all these facts as a whole. How can they possibly understand their macro-economic implications. People are only capable of entertaining one thought in their brains at a time, let alone 5 or 6.

There's no hope of discussing topics like this with people whose pattern indicates two dimensional thinking.

22   yodaking   2006 Jul 6, 6:41am  

Using actual IRS figures

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50% Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

Here is the link from the IRS website since you’ll probabaly not believe it.
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

(sigh)

23   Sylvie   2006 Oct 1, 2:31am  

It is the lesser of two evils. One thinks it can discount 95% of society that isn't the elite. And the other thinks govermental servitude is the answer. It is a question of individual morality. Greed has swallowed up this country no one is thier brothers keeper anymore. It is not for the benefit of the country at large but one's own personal gain.

The perverbial "dog eat dog" in politics. One can strive for and fight for what they deem are the right ideals. Be it wealth at everyone's exspense or social causes. It is up to the individual and how he or she has to live with oneself. But in the end you can't take it with you and you can't expect a medal or recognition. There is alot wrong with this country much self serving and greed. We have sadly given away all that once made this a great society. The generousity we are so known for throughout the world we do not extend to our own less fortunate.

We become bifurcated and divided not human to human. Red vs Blue white vs Black, Rich vs Poor. America has divided itself and when that happens we are no longer a great world power.

24   Bruce   2006 Oct 10, 9:54pm  

I have a number of good friends who voted Republican in the last presidential election. We discussed the matter often, and I gained some insight along the way.

To an extent, they voted their own interests asre personal finance - the break on taxation of dividends was much appreciated, and although they were not counting on further changes to inheritance taxes, theu wouldn't have been opposed to seeing the tax-exempt basis increased again.

Interestingly, not one of them felt the Bush administration was prosecuting the Iraq conflict or East/West diplomacy competently. Nonetheless, they were wary of a change of administration - and the attendant initial delays which always accompany setting up a new administration - with so many volatile foreign policy issues in progress.

While there was considerable distaste for various key members of Bush's team - all of them had admired Colin Powell and some had good reports of Secretary Rice at Stanford - they saw a real and disturbing political ineptitude in the Kerry campaign. Enough to tip their decision somewhat.

I personally would have given something to see Teresa Heinz Kerry somewhere near the oval office. I like and admire her.

Somewhere above is a post asking for an explanation of Mitt Romney in the Massachusetts governorship. He's a good guy, really, and pretty well-liked on all sides. If he were to run for President, I'd have to think about that.

For my part, I'd prefer we avoid giving both houses to any one party, or vast majorities to a single party in either house. Has anyone noticed the word 'bipartisan' has essentially vanished from the language?

25   Vicente   2006 Nov 13, 3:44am  

I'll disagree with the points about Republicans being independent thinkers. I used to have bass who was hard-core Republican. She had a radio in her office and would listen to Rush Limbaugh EVERY day. I had the office next door and it was quite annoying when I am trying to work and she is giggling over the latest Limbaugh comment. It seemed quite obvious to me there is a large chunk of Republicans who need daily reinforcement of their beliefs in order to keep believing them. A lot of the political comments out of her mouth were just repeats of what she had heard Rush say.

26   W.C. Varones   2007 Jan 20, 10:43pm  

How's this for an angry Republican?

27   sam204   2007 Apr 18, 3:40am  

Congrats Bettmen, you have made the condo flippers look smart.

D vs. R, protectionism is ignorance. If pursued, it will be a driving cause of the next great depression, as it contributed to the duration of the last one.
The idea that such command and control policies are effective- is not democrat v. republican, it is communism vs common sense. Get over your messiah/ hitler complex. The world would not be a better place with people like you controlling it.

28   NastySlapper   2007 Jul 10, 12:52pm  

"Sage" (what a misnomer) says:

3) The top 20% of wage earners earn 60% of all the income. This leaves 40% of the income thats left, for the bottom 80% of wage earners. This is because illegal immigration and out-sourcing makes it impossible for the bottom 80% of wage earners to compete for higher wages. Discuss.

4) The top 5% of the wealthiest people in this country own 75% of all the wealth. They should be paying 75% of all the taxes, don’t you think?

You wanted to "discuss", so here you go:

Holy crap, you are a retard.

a) Illegal immigration quite simply makes it easier for you (a legal citizen) to make MORE money and live at a higher standard of living. Given the fact that all these people take the jobs that you don't want, and for less pay, should make that clear. If they weren't doing it, the pay for those same jobs would go up, yes, but so would the price of the goods. In other words, EVERYONE's (all the "legal" citizens') standard of living would go down. It's really very simple - if a subsection of the population is UNDERpaid for what they are doing, the REST of the population benefits. (Ref: slavery).

b) Your type likes to rally for greater taxation of the "rich" and "corporations", unionized labor, affirmative action, minimum wage (and the list goes on), and then you turn around and complain about outsourcing and companies moving overseas. Again, it's real simple. If you could get a better house or job (and therefore a higher standard of living) by moving somewhere else, would you? How would you like the government telling you where you can live or work, or some dumb fuck complaining about you leaving your old neighborhood for a better deal elsewhere?

like to complain about outsourcing and the movement of U.S. business overseas.

c) As far as your #4 (The top 5% of the wealthiest people in this country own 75% of all the wealth. They should be paying 75% of all the taxes, don’t you think? ):
- Seems odd you would say that the top 20% richest people make 60% of the money, and then follow it by saying that the top 5% make 75% of it, don't you think? Unless you're differentiating "earned annual income" from a pre-existing (and already taxed) "wealth". But even in this case, are you trying to say that people should continue to pay tax, every year, on money they've made in years past? And the "rich" are paying far more tax than the poor, btw. Not really sure what the F*# you think you're talking about.

And corporations do not "pay tax" - ever, you **FUCKING** dolt. YOU pay it for them.

No matter how you try to flower it up, there really is one simple fact that you hyper-liberal armchair economists can't handle or even seem to fathom: the idea that a society that punishes production and efficiency and rewards laziness and incompetence will not ever work. And that is EXACTLY what you champion.

The bottom line is: stop coveting and begging, and go out and earn your own fortune.

Discuss!

29   NastySlapper   2007 Jul 10, 1:10pm  

And btw, it's not very hard to find things wrong with either political party. However, the Republicans happen to include many people who are less "republican" and more accurately "capitalists" or "libertarian" - people who strongly support free markets and fundamental, constitutional rights and less government.

If you have problems with the Republican party as of late (and who doesn't?) don't fool yourself into believing that all its constituents are hard-core fascists. Those who are proponents of a truly free market and other libertarian concepts are much more strongly aligned with the right (republican) than with the left (democrat). Unfortunately, we all know that in the past those have been the only practical political choices on the ticket. Maybe that is changing.

To Patrick, on a related note: I consider you an intelligent person with a fairly strong sense of economics. I was actually somewhat surprised that you are an avid liberal. I kind of wonder if you are more of an "anti-fascist" than a true socialist liberal. :) It seems that you are generally in the "free market" ideological camp... (e.g., against government bailout of failed capitalists, etc.)

I, for one, resent the term "liberal" being highjacked by the left. It seems plain as day to me that the views of the right (and especially the libertarian party) are more closely aligned to freedom and "liberty". But maybe that's just me.

30   CrankyLiberal   2007 Sep 8, 2:12am  

The more the people are punished the better. When they find themselves in a feudal hell maybe they'll warm up to the ideas of socialism.

Until then, I will enjoy seeing them suffer for their ignorance and selfishness.

31   pipeline010   2008 Apr 17, 2:43am  

Heyo~
1st time poster.

So what you're saying is that if only everyone would change the way they are they'd accept socialism and we'd all live together happy in the fields of harmony? Well, as a capitalist pig I absolutely agree with you.

The problem: People can't change what they are. We need a system of government and an economic plan that responds to what people ARE, not what we'd like them to be.

People are lazy and greedy. People don't want to do much that isn't in their own interest.

Think you're different? Well, that innate feeling of self-satisfaction you carry with you? That's your selfishness.

If you take away from people a feeling that they have control over their own choices and actions, you remove from them the drive to do anything. This is at the core of the republican (REAL REPUBLICAN) ideals of free markets and civil liberties.

Imagine: It's christmas morning and you wake up the kids. You've been collecting old sweaters and blankets for weeks from your friends and your family is planning to go out and hand out these items to transients and bums living in the city. You and your wife/husband and the kids head out to the car with the stuff you've collected but there is a group of men in black suits and black sunglasses standing in your driveway.

Man:"We're going to deliver these items, give them to us."
You:"But wait, we went through the trouble of collecting it all, can't we just..."
Man:"No, you'll screw it up. We want to do it give it to us or we're going to arrest you."
You: "Ok."

Three days later you see a politician on the news trying to get re-elected since he was the honest wonderful man who got the "Recloth The Poor Initiative" together.

That's your Socialism, that's your Democratic Party. This is EXACTLY what federal overtaxing does. They assume that everyone in america is greedy, selfish, and...oh wait, that part is true. What they are missing is that there is a desire in people to take care of one another (for selfish reasons, truly). Forcing us to do it takes away choice and makes us NOT want to do it at all!

I understand left-wing hate towards the Republicans, I really do. But get ready, cause what you are going to see is the emergence of the NEW Republican Party (which is ironic, cause we're truly the traditional repubs). TRUE free markets don't support or help the mega-rich. Current Neo-Con repubs have sheltered and protected business for many many years now, and we are beginning to see the effects of that type of market interference.

Dems: Take your money and use it to protect other people. (price fixing, individual bail-outs)
Neo-Cons: Take your money and use it to protect business interests (Bear Sterns, HMOs being protected from their own poor decisions!!!).
Traditional Republicans: Leave our money alone. Let us take care of ourselves. Stop bailing out companies, let them crumble if they're bad, new ones will take their place.

Federal Government:
Take our money for our protection from foreign or domestic parties that threaten our civil liberties. AND NOTHING ELSE.

Leftists will begin to warm up to the New/Old Conservatives. Indeed, it's in your nature.

32   Therafin   2017 Jul 7, 8:07am  

Wow - pretty fascinating what turns up when you hit "random post" on patnet.

33   Dan8267   2017 Jul 7, 8:28am  

Patrick says

#politics

You should have put this thread under #religion because Reaganomics and capitalism are religions to the conservative right. They cannot tolerate questioning of their economic dogma.

Economics is the new religion.

34   Dan8267   2017 Jul 7, 8:28am  

pipeline010 says

Heyo~

1st time poster.

Run before the trolls find you.

35   Dan8267   2017 Jul 7, 8:29am  

Patrick says

Angry Republicans

Is there any other kind?

36   Dan8267   2017 Jul 7, 8:30am  

Patrick says

The trick is to get those workers very angry - at someone else. This distracts them from what's really going on. Karl Rove understands this clearly, so he stokes the anger of ordinary workers. He makes them angry about abortion, evolution, flag burning, France, gays, guns, liberals, newspapers, "rich Democrats", school prayer, anything, anything except the one thing that would make their lives better: fair taxes on passive income, income the rich get for doing nothing at all.

37   FortWayne   2017 Jul 7, 8:43am  

I'm middle class, not rich by any means. I'm a republican because I believe in incentives of work. I don't agree with government increasing my taxes to promote equality of outcomes.

Democrats always increase taxes on business and individuals and at the end we all have less, and poverty doesn't go down.

38   lostand confused   2017 Jul 7, 9:44am  

It has to go both ways. Take iL for example -just enacted a 32% tax hike for all. Now it already has the highest property tax in the nation. This is pushed by the dems and with a few repub switch overs overrode the veto . What do we get in return for this-same pensions, same spending, same evrything.

On top of that dems love free trade and globalism now-so what gives-why vote for a dem unless you like trigglypuff.

39   justme   2017 Jul 7, 10:20am  

Wow, this thread by Patrick in 2005 was from before I joined Patnet, and it was a stellar example of what Patnet used to be. This thread post was beyond awesome, Patrick.

And for the most part, this was before the right-wing propaganda trolls invaded the place. Another bonus.

40   justme   2017 Jul 7, 10:26am  

lostand confused says

It has to go both ways. Take iL for example -just enacted a 32% tax hike for all. Now it already has the highest property tax in the nation. This is pushed by the dems and with a few repub switch overs overrode the veto . What do we get in return for this-same pensions, same spending, same evrything.

On top of that dems love free trade and globalism now-so what gives-why vote for a dem unless you like trigglypuff.

There you go with the usual right-wing tax propaganda again. The Illinois state tax increase was 1.20% POINTS, from 3.75%, to 4.95%
Of course, the right-wing propagandists will cast this as a "32% increase".

Reference:
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-lawmakers-pass-permanent-income-tax-hike-override-rauners-veto/

Comments 1 - 40 of 51       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions