Forums | MacLife

The republican philosophy to me is to protect the rich (top 5% of the pop) at the expense of everyone else. This is across the board in every aspect.

"new" push?

It's certainly unreal.

I've said it elsewhere, but Republicans aren't for smaller government or much else of what they say they are for.

wellfleation wrote:

The republican philosophy to me is to protect the rich (top 5% of the pop) at the expense of everyone else. This is across the board in every aspect.

You need to check your talking points against reality.

It is the poorer rural areas that tend to be republican, the richer metro areas that tend to be democrat.

The democrats want to protect big government by buying the vote of the poor city folk with promises of services that never have closed the gap in class separation, while they insult the rural city folks by calling them red-necks and hicks and joke about their education level.

It is the democrats that want to increase gas taxes, in the name of "global warming" - that make just about everything more expensive for the poor.
It was the democrats that supported use of eminent domain to take houses away from people so that cities could demolish them and build new development to increase property tax and thus revenue to feed the big government.
It is the democrats that want to tax cigarette's and soda, sending the finger to poor folks and telling them they must step in line and live the way the rich democrats want them to live, they aren't classy enough to buy those things so they are no longer affordable.
It is the democrat supported school unions that are keeping the crappiest school districts in the poor part of towns crappy by making it damn near impossible to ever fire a teacher, while the rich democrats can send their kids to private school giving them a competitive edge over the poor folk with crappy teachers and no standards those crappy teachers must teach to.
It is the democrats who are against school vouchers that give some of those poorer kids a chance to attend the private schools that may give them a leg up in life.

You've been duped, and you've been duped big time.

I don't believe your reality.

I hate to break it to you guys, but neither party gives a crap about anyone that can't provide either 1) campaign donations or 2) access to campaign donors. If you don't fall under either category, neither party could care less if you get run over by a bus. Hell, even being a tax payer doesn't cut it - because you either get a pass if you are broke (in which case, you don't qualify under 1 or 2), or go to jail if you aren't.

This is why both Republicans and Democrats will fall all over themselves to make sure the rich don't suffer. It's not that they want to rest of us to suffer in their place, it's just that they don't give a crap about us.

resedit wrote:

I don't believe your reality.

That is exactly what the Bush tax reductions did, res. And his budget for the war increased spending.

sturner wrote:

resedit wrote:

I don't believe your reality.

That is exactly what the Bush tax reductions did, res. And his budget for the war increased spending.

Bushes tax refund was not the only impact the economy.

Tech bubble was artificially inflated to insane prices, making the allusion of money existing that wasn't real.
Tech bubble burst.

sturner wrote:

There were 8 years to adjust the budget. They didn't. The budget surplus was gone in 1 year. Bush did the same in Texas. We are still operating at a deficit. In Texas the government is controlled by Republicans. There are no excuses.

They tried to do something about the housing.
They also had 9/11.
Bush specifically asked Congress to do something about it. Congress refused to act, and accused him of wanting to deny homes to lower income.

I'm not going to say Bush was a financial wizard - but to blame the current economy on the tax cut is being extremely selective in where you are placing the blame.

Also, note that Congress has to act to change anything. The housing crash happened under the watch of the Dems, when they had control of both house and senate. The current unemployment situation happened while Obama was in office, with things currently being a lot worse than Obama's administration specifically said they would get before they would start getting better.

resedit wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

The republican philosophy to me is to protect the rich (top 5% of the pop) at the expense of everyone else. This is across the board in every aspect.

You need to check your talking points against reality.

It is the poorer rural areas that tend to be republican, the richer metro areas that tend to be democrat.

The fact that poor people vote republican is not a counter example to what wellfleation said, you are comparing apples to oranges. And you know that. Actual policy and what propaganda people believe are two different things.

People are funny when they act as a group- individually they might hate child molesters or thugs or rich spoiled brats or whatever, but if those same sorts of people are playing for their sports team, all of a sudden its not that big a deal. Politics is a similar game as far as how the public relates to what they observe on tv or the paper or radio- they take it as an us vs them sort of fantasy battle, but just like sports fans shouting at tv screens has next to no effect on the next play, neither does the public really have any voice one way or the other in the halls of power. What goes on in the locker room or in board meetings or on the field is a totally different world than the world where the people are rooting for one side or the other- the only relationship that is really there is how well tix and merchandise and advertising pulls money out their pockets. In a similar way, the real world politics which politicians alone live and work in is separated and distinct from the public in just such a way that actual policies dont matter, the only thing that relates them to the public is propaganda, which may or may not be true, so long as enough people buy it.

resedit wrote:

sturner wrote:

There were 8 years to adjust the budget. They didn't. The budget surplus was gone in 1 year. Bush did the same in Texas. We are still operating at a deficit. In Texas the government is controlled by Republicans. There are no excuses.

They tried to do something about the housing.
They also had 9/11.
Bush specifically asked Congress to do something about it. Congress refused to act, and accused him of wanting to deny homes to lower income.

I'm not going to say Bush was a financial wizard - but to blame the current economy on the tax cut is being extremely selective in where you are placing the blame.

Also, note that Congress has to act to change anything. The housing crash happened under the watch of the Dems, when they had control of both house and senate. The current unemployment situation happened while Obama was in office, with things currently being a lot worse than Obama's administration specifically said they would get before they would start getting better.

9/11 happened under the watch of President Bush and the Republicans.

Ribtorus wrote:

Dana Perino claimed there were no terrorist attacks during Bush's term. And Hannity didn't correct her.

She wasn't a lying mouthpiece. She was a sexy lying mouthpiece.

The less said about Hannity the better.