A recent piece in the WSJ by that bastion of Truth Justice and the Pharmaceutical way, Rush Limbaugh, suggested that to be truly bipartisan, 46% of the stimulus package should be controlled by him (as if anybody elected him) to give away as tax cuts--starting with corporations.
A Republican friend sent this to me and said "This is funny!" and I replied, "this would be funny if by you mean funny as "something smells funny."
If tax cuts could prevent the current problem, then we wouldn't have it, as Bush did a lot of tax cutting to a lot of people who could well afford the taxes. Didn't help anything but the income of the upper 2%.
If this kind of stimulus bill is so bad, then why is it what Bush and his financial people started-only in their case they started it without any kind of oversight, which has already lead to top CEOs giving themselves millions of dollars while they lay off thousands of people. At least this new bill has some oversight to make sure the money isn't being wasted.
"Supply side" economics has never actually stimulated the economy, it has only taken money from the future and moved it to the present via deficits, which is what Regan created the largest of, until Bush came along.
FDR's plans DID take the country out of the depression by creating work--and creating infrastructure that's still used in this country today. The WPA and CCC and other programs were extremely effective at creating jobs that actually created things the country needed, schools, roads, bridges. Tax cuts build nothing. Create no lasting legacy. If they did, then the Bush years would have been years of growth, rather than recession.
As for corporate tax, that's the joke. In 1960 corporations paid 80% of all the tax in this country--and yet, somehow, they made profits, they hired new workers, and business grew and grew. All that with high corporate taxes.
Now individuals pay 80% of the tax and corporations pay 20%, and corporations complain they can't make a go of it, and their way out is to give millions to the CEOs who ran them into the ground, while firing tens of thousands of employees. That's not about taxes, that's about greed and mismanagement, and, in some cases, the massive corporate burden of a health care system designed for insurance and pharma companies, rather than patients and doctors.
As for bipartisanship--Obama made concessions about tax cuts for the Republicans. And NOT A SINGLE ONE VOTED FOR THE PLAN, WITH THE FEATURES THEY DEMANDED. Not one. That's no bipartisanship. That's counter-productive, playing politics, without a care for their country or constituents. They voted for it when Bush proposed it, but not when Obama did it--with more input from them. That's childish, like little children crying when they don't get their way.
Well, guess what Republican party, you didn't get your way because you made such a horrible mess of things when you got your way--with the one-party system you had for almost eight years.
You messed up as badly as any other president and congress in the history of this country and because we somehow still managed to be a democracy, the citizens, your employers, FIRED YOU.
They voted AGAINST YOU. YOU LOST, REPUBLICANS.
And if you keep up this nonsense of not even voting to help give your employers more time to switch their TVs to digital signals (who votes against that--um, Republicans!), then you are going to lose even more jobs to the point where you're going to have to come up with a whole new name for your party, and a new logo, too.
Because now--the Republican party as become THE PARTY OF "NO."
That's fine if you're consistent about no new taxes and no bigger government. But after eight years of "NO to helping citizens" and YES to helping corporations and billions in handouts to oil companies and trillions in wars, well, you can't have it both ways, my friend. At least not without what's happening now.
So when the Republicans want to be responsible again, and be consistent about smaller government and less spending and balancing the budget, then I'll first say, "Um, where were you for the eight years you ran the country?" and then I'll say, "Great idea, but first don't you think the government has some responsibility for cleaning up the mess it made in the previous 8 years?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Oh, Mr Harris... First of all, I never said the op-ed in the WSJ was funny. I specifically said it was NOT. I said YOU would think it was funny.
Anyway, I am probably one of only a few conservative friends you have. I am proud to be your friend, by the way. Most of what you know about today's opposition to your Messiah, Barak Hussein Obama, is what is inaccurately reported by the media. The very same media which is having a rediculous love affair with this man and finds it appalling that there would be any differing opinion expressed against his policies. The nerve!!! So let me express myself directly to you and anyone that may read this.
I Love this country we live in. I happen to have deep philosophical difference with you and others who think like you about how this country should be run. I disagree profoundly with President Obama's Socialistic approach. Therefore, I will speak out when I believe he is doing the wrong thing.
I believe it's the people and our founding fathers vision that make this country the greatest in the world and NOT the politicians. I do not rely on government or any politician to assure my happiness, only to assure my right to pursue it. Therefore, since President Obama is just a man, a flawed human being (as we all are), he is NOT my Savior.
My questions to you and others with whom I disagree... Why is it that there never seems to be a serious dialogue about specific ideas? It always boils down to the 'blame --- game' (Insert name.. Bush, Cheney, Halliberton, Rumsfeld, bla bla bla). Why is it that the Democrats never seem to take responsibility for anything that is or ever has gone wrong? If I am incorrect on that point, please site me some current examples of the lefts screw ups. I can site plenty on my side of the aisle.
I have no problem blaming President Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, yet your side of the aisle refuses to acknowledge Barney Frank or Chris Dodds or others role in any of this. Why not?
The questions are flowing... Why is it that President Obama said lobbyists would have "no home in his Whitehouse", yet he appointed them anyway? Will you hold him accountable for that? Why is it that the treasury Secretary gets a pass on TAX EVASION? Will Geitner give me a pass if I forget to pay my taxes? But mostly, where is the morality and transperancy we were promised?
If you decide to answer these questions, please answer them directly without siting President Bush. Is that even possible?
Let me put this in a way you can clearly understand. I support President Barak Hussein Obama, but I do not support his policies... Just as the left supported our troops but did not support the war. Make sense?
Now, your title of this blog referred to BIPARTISANSHIP. What in the world does the left know about that? Even Speaker Pelosi stated she did not come to Washington to be bipartisan! This bill being rammed through congress is a disgrace! There is very little stimulus in it and most of the money (freshly printed money, by the way) doesn't get injected into the economy until 2010! I thought this was an emergency. I am actually proud of my fellow Republicans for taking a stand... FINALLY!!!
President Obama has been telling folks to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh... a private citizen exercising his right to free speech. That's Socialistic! He has been telling corporations to refuse private jets that were ordered 3 years ago. That's Socialistic! He is sending tax refunds to those who don't pay taxes to begin with. Besides being welfare, that's Socialistic! He is increasing the deficit by another TRILLION DOLLARS in the name of saving the economy. That's Socialistic! Socialism destroys economies Mr. President.
Don't get me wrong. President Barak Hussein Obama is not a bad man, but he will be bad for this country. I have not even addressed his policies on the wars! Do't get me started on that.
Bottom line... I will not support his policies as long as they promote Socialism. You go ahead, that is your right. I will not.
GOD Bless America.
I'm fine with an open dialog of ideas, which is why I posted your reply, and am now debating your points.
Why is it, that when Republicans let corporations control the country, give them massive tax breaks and also funnel billions to them--the very definition of FASCISM, this is somehow OK.
But when Democrats advance a stimulus package which is not all that different, except it includes more support for individuals, and government oversight to prevent 20 billion from being given away to a few in Bonuses--TWENTY BILLION--that money could build countless schools, bridges, homes... suddenly, that's "socialism." ?
I'd rather have socialism than fascism any day, because at least in socialism it's the citizens in control, not the corporations, and the citizens who benefit, not just a few high up in the corporate and financial food chain--like royalty--while most of the people in the country suffer the greatest depression since 1929.
Socialism is, in fact, far more democratic than Fascism--which by definition strips the people of their power and rights.
Why is there such a complete double-standard based on who is doing the giving and who it goes to?
When it comes from a Republican president and goes to the same Wall Street wizards who got us into this mess--without oversight--and billions go to a few, that's OK.
But when Detroit automakers want money then the unions and workers are blamed and all asked to take pay CUTS. Pay cuts that amount to less than the money that the Wall Street wizards just stole in unwarranted bonuses taken directly from Federal aid. Or when the money is going to actual infrastructure, the way FDR did SO SUCCESSFULLY in the past, that's socialism--as if it's a dirty word.
Explain to that to me, if you can.
As for this whole "Obama Messaiah" NONSENSE, it's absurd, ridiculous, and even insulting. Did anyone call the previous president (who's name I won't mention at your request, but his initial was "W") that after 9/11 when he was going to be our big savior from the rest of the world?
When he was standing for his photo ops aboard aircraft carriers announcing "mission accomplished" and he was our great white hope?
No, you know why? Because Democrats may sometimes be lame, but they aren't childish name-callers. Yet Republicans have, consistently over the years, made personal attacks and resorted to name-calling to Democrats.
As for the so-called Liberal media--they were 100% behind bush, from the time they allowed him to take office without being duly elected to not offering ANY criticism of him for years. Yet did anyone every call him "our fearless leader" or "el Capitan" or any other made up stupid insulting name? No.
When he started a war without probably cause--STARTED a war, a "holy" war, in fact, did anyone call him a savior or messiah, even though his ACTIONS were, in fact, messianic?
We called his words and actions stupid--which they clearly were. That was an actual criticism of his words and actions--not some cutesy slander, or quasi-religious smear, as if anyone thought Obama was greater than God. To even suggest that is merely playing into the hands of those who want to create fear and hate.
NAME CALLING IS NOT adding to a "serious dialog" as you call it.
And yes, once again, somehow the magical double standard comes into play and if people are merely HOPEFUL that Obama will help--that he is actually TRYING to help, after years of a Government that did nothing but PILLAGING the resources of the country--the treasury and the people, somehow it's not OK to hope and be positive without being mocked as being mindless messiahs.
I take offense at that and don't see it as at all constructive in a serious dialog.
Now--I agree that the Democrats could have TRIED harder, during the previous administration--but, if you will remember, during the "one party" years, Republicans simply shut them out--they weren't even allowed to see legislation before votes, and the Republican majority was such that it didn't matter if all the Democrats banded together to vote against it...
And so, the "blame game" as Republicans LOVE to call it, is apt in this case, because at some point our so-called representatives must take responsibility for their actions, and we are suffering for their actions right now.
Should the Democrats have grown a set and made a fuss--yes, they should have. Should they have tried to use the press as ruthlessly (and effectively!) as the Republicans to get their message across? Yes.
But does that make the Democratic minority, which did not set the agenda or create the rules, into the people to blame? No, and yet now YOU are playing the blame game against them.
Once again, it's a double standard, my friend. Where Republican buzz-words mask the truth behind a wall of words. And they claim the Democrats are "elite" while attending the same schools and using far more sophisticated and utterly calculated linguistics to distort and manipulate. Republicans have been utter and complete geniuses at manipulating the language in their favor, to the point where they made "liberal," a word our founding fathers found a powerful force for good, into a dirty word.
As for the individual actions of members of Obama's cabinet--let he who has never had a tax problem throw the first stone. Maybe it's you, in which case, fire away. If we want to start counting the number of scandals among people in the Bush administration then we're going to waste a long time arguing about this. Nobody is perfect--not even Obama, and nobody should expect them to be.
There are real crimes (Blagojevich, Cheney--yes, I must mention him for his war crimes and organized rape of the treasury), and then there are trivial personal ones.
It's time to put things in perspective, stop wasting time on the trivial and start looking at the big stuff.
As for the lobbyists, they are experienced people who worked in previous administrations (from both parties, mind you), and now they've had to sign an agreement that says they won't lobby this administration if they leave--that's the difference between this and previous administrations (of both parties).
You don't not use experienced people simply because they've been a lobbyist, which is the job of choice for former officials. But you do ensure that there is no current conflict of interest, and that in the future they don't use their pull in the same area.
---
Socialism. Socialism. Socialism. Sigh. Is that all you've got? You keep clinging to that as if it's the most horrible thing you can think of.
By your definition--there are plenty of happily democratic socialistic countries in the world. Let's include Australia in that--where if you are sick or hurt for any reason your medical bills are taken care of, someone will take care of your kids in your house if you can't do it, and you don't have to worry about going bankrupt because you were injured or sick.
That's GOOD socialism.
Compare that to here, where for-profit insurance companies tell you what medical procedures you can and can't have, where they can reject valid claims for care, and where, often, you simply can't get insurance, so you can lose your house and life savings trying to pay for care that is simply a "right" in every other industrialized nation on the planet. Every one. But ours.
Again--good Socialism.
So stop trying to turn it into a dirty word--it's not.
And, like I said, I'll take socialism over fascism any day. We've had eight years of fascism (much of it out and out unconstitutional), so democratic socialism offer a HUGE IMPROVEMENT to the lives of citizens, and the health and well being of our constitution.
Stop playing the name game, my friend, and start recognizing that at a time like this, when the country and world have been thrown into such serious trouble by the uncontrolled fascist power of a few, the hope and hard work of the many is what's needed. That's not blind faith or any of the names you're calling it.
It's the American Dream, hard at work again, after 8 years of suffocation.
Post a Comment