home
about
archives
|
REPUBLICAN IDEOLOGY EXPLAINED
01/29/2010
Republicans like to tout their ideology every chance they get. In fact, they use it as a weapon to beat up Democrats. “We’re for low taxes,” they say. “We’re for fiscal discipline.”
“The Democrats are the party of tax and spend,” they add. “We want to lower the deficit.”
Then they claim they’re for “small government,” and “getting government out of your lives.”
Now with the teabaggers pushing them, they say they are “for the people” and “against Washington.”
They criticize the bank bailout and the stimulus because they’re “too expensive,” and then they point to the bad economy and high unemployment numbers and say “It’s Obama’s fault.”
They talk about “Obamacare” and “socialized medicine” and say it will “kill grandma” and “get between you and your doctor.”
They say Obama is moving the country “left” as if he was about to build an American Kremlin in downtown Washington. They say they want him to fail.
Let’s go through this Republican “ideology” compare it to their actions, and expose it for what it is: complete nonsense.
The Republicans are not for low taxes unless you are rich. George W. Bush did very little to lower taxes for the middle class, but he sure gave a whopper of a tax cut to his rich buddies. And that is one reason the deficit is so high. The other big reason, of course, is that we are fighting two wars, both of which are foolish and unnecessary. One may have even been illegal, according to international law, though I know Republicans don’t give a crap about international law.
When Obama pointed out in his State of the Union speech that he inherited a mess from the previous administration, which no one can dispute except Republican lawmakers and pundits, they said he was the only president who looked backward. I guess they forgot what Reagan said in his first State of the Union: “To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going, but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous.” Sounds familiar, eh? But that was then, and this is now. And that was St. Ronnie, the white guy, while this is the uppity black guy with the Muslim name who should never have been elected.
Speaking of the State of the Union, the Republicans sat on their hands whenever Obama proposed something that fit their supposed ideology. They sat stone-faced when he proposed getting the people’s TARP money back from the banks. Likewise when he proposed tax breaks for businesses that keep jobs in the U.S. and ending them for corporations that send jobs overseas. Yet, they say they’re for the people – the American people. USA! USA! USA! They sat when Obama proposed tax credits for small businesses, and when he asked the Congress to enact a law prohibiting foreign businesses from buying our elections. And just yesterday, “the party of fiscal discipline” voted unanimously against the Democrat’s “pay as you go” policy.
So apparently, they don’t like tax cuts, they don’t like American jobs, they don’t like fiscal discipline and they’re for foreign companies having influence over our elections. Makes no sense unless…..
Now, on to the bank bailout and the stimulus. Every reputable economist acknowledges that the bank bailout, while unpopular, was necessary. Were it not for the bank bailout, we would be living in the midst of a second depression. And now when things are better, and Obama wants the people’s money returned from banks that are benefitting from that money, the Republicans say “no.” This, of course, also makes no sense, unless…..
As for deficits, the three Republican presidents preceding Obama – Reagan, Bush I and Bush II – increased the deficits much more than the two previous Democratic presidents. In fact, one of the Democratic presidents left office with a surplus. So who is better at reducing the deficit? Obama just proposed a bipartisan deficit reduction commission, and Congress voted on a bill to create it two days ago. Twelve Republicans who had co-sponsored the bill voted against it at the last minute and defeated it. That makes no sense unless…..
As for the stimulus, which economists say has both saved and created jobs, though not nearly enough, Republicans opposed the stimulus and wanted more tax breaks. They insisted on tax breaks in the stimulus bill, and they got them, which meant less money went to job creation, but still they attack Obama for not creating enough jobs. Did their tax breaks create jobs? I’d like to see figures confirming how many. Then they attack Obama when he proposes using a small portion of the returned TARP money to create more jobs. You just can’t please these guys, unless….
As for “Obamacare,” there is no such thing. Thanks to the Republicans’ unanimous refusal to vote for any health care bill, there will probably be no health care reform this year. The House and Senate bills will probably not be reconciled, and it should be mentioned that both bills would have been a boost to the insurance companies and to the economy and would not have created a government program. Neither bill was “socialized medicine,” and neither included any provision to “put the government between you and your doctor” or “kill grandma.” Any human being with an IQ higher than room temperature would know that. Both bills relied on private industry, not a government program, and both would have reduced everyone’s health care costs in the long run. Now we are likely to see ever-rising health insurance premiums, increasing numbers of uninsured who have pre-existing conditions, and continuing crowded emergency rooms, where seriously ill people with insurance are shoved up against a wall in a crowded hallway because some uninsured kid has a sprained wrist and some uninsured, middle-aged woman has a headache, and the ER is the only place they can’t be turned away. If the Republicans think this refusal to reform health care is “for the people,” then they live in an alternate universe, unless….
President Obama is not trying to move the country left, he is trying to move the country forward. His State of the Union speech was far too deferential to right wing ideas for me, but then Obama is not ideological. He is practical. He wants everyone to have jobs and health care. And he would like Republicans to work with him, but they refuse, even when he proposes policies they claim they support. They say “no” again and again, voting en masse, like little robots without brains or hearts. This makes no sense, unless…
Unless…They are not serious about their purported ideology. As my mother used to say, "actions speak louder than words." Republicans have lots of words, but they are all lies. Their actions prove it. They don’t really care about the people, or the deficit, or jobs. And they certainly don’t care about ensuring health care to their fellow Americans. They care about one thing: POWER. Why? Because POWER leads to MONEY, not for small business, or job creation, or health care or a cleaner environment, or green energy, but for them. They will violate every principle, every value, every ideal they claim to hold, just to defeat President Obama.
And the people, who see Obama's agenda defeated because of the Republican strategy of obstruction (and the dishonest propaganda of FOX News), may well blame the president rather than the real culprits, those pasty faced Republicans who refuse to do anything to move the country forward, and who, like obstinate, immature two year olds, stamp their collective feet and say “NO.”
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
