These guys are the height of unprincipled…except when it comes to undercutting the President…
They have blocked policies that they themselves have initiated or co-sponsored or supported, as far back as ’08, as soon as the President says he agrees with it. Too often this sort of context is missed by the mainstream media and the Repugs continue this unpatriotic behaviour and get off scot-free. This portion of the political debate needs more light given to it and the American people need to make these hacks pay…
So… when we were running a budget surplus under Clinton, the Republicans advocated for tax cuts because, essentially, the government was over-taxing it’s citizens. Then the Bush administration got two massive tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthy, didn’t pay for the Prescription Drug Plan and got into two massively expensive wars without paying for any of it. And even after all these tax cuts the economy fails in 2008 and Bush introduces TARP to bail out the banks. After Obama wins in 2008, he tries to revive the economy by borrowing more money and stimiulating the economy only to have these same Republicans advocate for MORE tax cuts while proclaiming the government still taxes it’s citizens too much… So the debt we have today, to a very large extent, is due to Bush economic policies in the 2000’s and, to a very small extent, Obama, in an attempt to revive the economy. The context is important to review.
And let me get this straight… Republicans want to cut taxes when you have a budget surplus AND cut taxes when you have a massive budget deficit and debt!? Is there ever a time to raise revenue with these guys? How little should taxes be to have an infallible humming economy and still provide the services that Americans require? Can someone explain to me how cutting taxes now will create any new jobs!? Aren’t corporate profits the highest they have been in our history?? Aren’t high corporate profits supposed to trickle-down to the masses through corporate hiring? So then where are the Jobs!!!??? (and I don’t mean McJobs either…)
Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.
The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years. – Lori Montgomery
I concur with Olbermann…
9/11 has been politicised by the Republicans since 2002. They have run elections on it…and won!!! And now they want to assign the Bush administration credit for torture techniques that DID NOT lead to bin Laden’s death. They are diabolical. And should be held to account at the ballot box from here on out.
To assign Obama credit for killing bin Laden is not playing politics… It’s the TRUTH.
Corporate taxes are the lowest they have been in decades. They need to pay their fair share of taxes.
The anti–corporate tax dodging movement is growing momentum during a time when GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor, Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty propagate daily the lie that corporations are already overtaxed in America. While corporations claim they’re taxed at 35 percent, their actual effective tax rate is much, much lower after deductions, credits and write-offs.
During the 1950s, the decade in which more people joined the middle class than at any time in history—before or since—corporations paid 49 percent of their profits in taxes. Last year, it was about half that rate, a decidedly more modest 26 percent. In 2010, corporate tax collections totaled $191 billion—down 8 percent from $207 billion as recently as 2000.
Perhaps a more telling yardstick, corporate tax revenue in 2009 came to just 1 percent of gross domestic product—the lowest collection level since 1936, or three-quarters of a century ago. In 2010, it edged up to a puny 1.3 percent—the second-lowest since 1940. Even worse, the shriveled tax collections came at a time when corporations were registering an all-time high in profits. At the end of 2010, corporations posted an annualized profit of $1.65 trillion in the fourth quarter. In other words, the more they made, the less they paid. – Allison Kilkenny
I have a friend who vehemently disagrees with the notion of abortions and she abhors the thought. It is THE reason she identifies as a Republican and accepts a lot of the other more questionable rhetoric spewed from the Right. I have thought, on many occasions, why even we could not agree, substantively, on ways to reduce abortions and why her religious belief on one issue should be forced on others in a country where abortion is legal and based on a women’s right to choose OR not choose (hopefully in consultation with the child’s father and if she is a person of faith, with her God). This Maddow Blog post actually made me think and re-evaluate why the chasm may be so big between my friend and I, and thus, between the two competing sides of the abortion debate.
A larger theme in the Republican war on abortion rights didn’t occur to me until I read it in a comment by GrrrlRomeo on Wednesday’s links post. Since then I’ve seen it echoed a few more times, including on the show last night in the interview with N.O.W. president Terry O’Neill.
The idea, in short, is that if your goal is to restore old-fashioned gender roles and family structure to the American way of life, taking away a woman’s ability to have sex without getting pregnant is a fast way to reach that goal.
From GrrrlRomeo’s comment:
Yes, there is a faction of anti-abortion activists that only want to save the fetuses at any and all costs. But the broader mainstream conservative strategy is the same as it ever was. They don’t think the government should fund services for people they deem to be leading an immoral lifestyle (people who have sex).
While there have been a lot of mentions of Pap tests, no one is really saying what it’s for. It’s a cancer screening for a cancer that’s caused by HPV, a sexually transmitted infection that affects 50% of men and women at some point in their lives.
Here’s Gail Collins in yesterday’s New York Times:
For eons now, people have been wondering why the two sides can’t just join hands and agree to work together to reduce the number of abortions by expanding the availability of family-planning services and contraception.
The answer is that a large part of the anti-abortion community is also anti-contraception.
Beyond the science, there’s the fact that many social conservatives are simply opposed to giving women the ability to have sex without the possibility of procreation.
What we have here is a wide-ranging attack on women’s right to control their reproductive lives…
And N.O.W.’s Terry O’Neill last night:
And here`s the thing — this hostility to women`s abortion rights doesn`t stop with abortion. What we`re seeing across the board really is hostility to women`s reproductive health care rights. We just had a fight in which the extremists in the House of Representatives and in Congress tried to cut off funding, all funding, for family planning clinics that serve more than 5 million women and men every year, right? These are family planning clinics that don`t provide abortions, that provide contraception, pap tests, mammograms, STD testing and treatment, HIV/AIDS testing.
What`s happening is that as abortion — as anti-abortion laws gain more and more traction, we`re also seeing attacks on all of the other aspects of women`s reproductive health. And frankly, defunding the family planning clinics is a public health nightmare in the making. But we`re seeing these attacks across the reproductive health rights.
I also went back and re-watched Wednesday night’s interview with Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and I believe she was also alluding to this larger theme:
But I think what is important, too, Rachel, that folks understand that literally what the House of Representatives and what Speaker Boehner are trying to do is not end abortion services. They are trying to eliminate birth control and cancer screenings for women. – Will Femia
The fact that this is even a headline on a major news website shows the power that Whites, as a whole, wield on the American psyche and the American narrative. But we never talk about that. The fact that you have an article actually arguing the merits of this point of view I find utterly ridiculous. A supremely powerful majority who views themselves as an oppressed minority? Really!!?? And a major network that gives this point of view voice!? Are we always to be fair and balanced… You have got to be kidding me.
There is a such thing as a “legitimate” argument. Just because you MAKE and argument doesn’t make the argument a legitimate one. I could “argue” that the President was born in Kenya. I could make that argument…and Mike Huckabee has…but does that mean his argument is accurate or legitimate or truthful or righteous in any way? Whites as an oppressed minority? Seriously!? Is the NAACP racist too? Has the Tea Party no racist overtones!?
The article relays these bullet points as evidence:
• A recent Public Religion Research Institute poll found 44% of Americans surveyed identify discrimination against whites as being just as big as bigotry aimed at blacks and other minorities. The poll found 61% of those identifying with the Tea Party held that view, as did 56% of Republicans and 57% of white evangelicals.
• More colleges are offering courses in “Whiteness Studies” as white Americans cope with becoming what one commentator calls a “dispossessed majority group.”
• A Texas group recently formed the “Former Majority Association for Equality” to offer college scholarships to needy white men. Colby Bohannan, the group’s president, says white men don’t have scholarship options available to minorities. “White males are definitely not a majority” anymore, he says.
• U.S. Census Bureau projections that whites will become a minority by 2050 are fueling fears that whiteness no longer represents the norm. This fear has been compounded by the recent recession, which hit whites hard.
You have this perception out there that whites are no longer in control or the majority.
–Charles Gallagher, sociologist
• Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh argued in a radio show that Republicans are an “oppressed minority” in need of a “civil rights movement” because its members willingly sit in the “back of the bus” and “are afraid of the fire hoses and the dogs.”
• Fox talk-show host Glenn Beck led a march on Washington (attended primarily by white people) to “restore honor,” and once called President Obama a racist with a “deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture.” He later said he regretted making that comment.
This is exactly why you need a definition of racism/white supremacy. A definition of truth. Not one brought forth by the majority to usurp or confuse the illness that is racism/white supremacy. There also needs to be a dichotomy drawn between what would better be called prejudice and what should be called racism/white supremacy. To confuse the two words or to make them indistinguishable allows for a white majority to claim racial oppression and minority status (when the facts and reality point to no such thing) while they continue to control every industry and station.
Is the budget a moral document? Shouldn’t it reflect our priorities as a nation? Is your priority bankers or teachers? The wealthy or the poor and working class? The powerful or the poor. Which would Jesus choose…
I do not separate politics from my religion or my race. They all play a part in where I stand on issues. This issue is no different. While deficits and budgets can be viewed in moral terms, how you handle the budget and deficits in real terms and who is affected most by those deficit and budget fixes shines a real light on the window to the souls of lawmakers and legislators as well.
After the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, made a “moral” argument about the deficit to some Christian Conservatives this past weekend, Jim Wallis of Sojourners put this full page ad in Politico. And his point hit home for me.
Mr Boehner cannot call the deficits and budgets a moral issue only when it feeds the Christian conservative mantra of less government. He also must be held accountable for how he institutes the budget fixes as it relates to he and his party’s morals as well. Are tax breaks for the wealthy and voting to continue big-oil subsidies that are funded by tax payers part of your moral argument Mr Boehner!? Just as you cut the jobs, wages and services of regular working class Americans… As Mr Boehner would say, “So be it!”
It’s always “power” vs “the people” with these Republicans…
It’s time “the people” stood up.
So be it…
As religious leaders, we don’t believe that our most vulnerable people should bear more additional burdens. Do you agree? Why are there deep cuts in budget proposals to some of our most important programs that prevent deadly diseases among children in Africa and provide critical nutrition for our poorest families right here at home? These are not only cost-effective, but also relatively low in cost compared to massive expenditures in our military budget, corporate tax loopholes, and subsidies to oil, gas, and agribusiness companies — just to name a few of the things that were protected in the proposals from your House Republicans. Is that fair? Is that right? Is that moral? – Jim Wallis