Monday, September 13, 2010

Why I Hate Republicans

It's no mystery why I'm apt to never support Democrats.  Primarily, it's because they take a worldview that looks for solutions  to problems with big chunks of government, as well as a little (or a lot) of income redistribution on the side.  It varies from candidate to candidate, but it's because I generally don't agree with them on most of the politics of the day.  Fair enough. There are all kinds of ideas and all kinds of people out there, and I can't imagine agreeing with all of them (especially the deluded and nuts).

But we're in a two-party system, and those two parties generally shouldn't agree even on the color of shit.  And that means that while I will generally disagree with the Dems, I should generally find agreement with the GOP.

Therein lies the problem.  Far too many Republicans of power and stature give lip service to policies in opposition to the Dems, but are big government bitches at heart too.

Now I'm not talking RINOs the likes of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Scott Brown.  We know them, we know that they are regularly going to screw the GOP over when it counts.  And since they don't represent me, or my family, I'll leave it to their constituents to boot them or keep them.  Sadly, 2/3 of these RINOs have gotten the re-elect., and Brown is likely to get it (being "conservative" compared to the bunch of lib-tards in Taxachusetts (yeah, cheap shot I know, but if I didn't mock you, you'd think I didn't care.

Oh, and I won't even get into the details on John "Assface" McCain, lest the cursing reach a fever pitch, although he was the prime example of a useless and worthless excuse for Republican.  

No, today my refined loathing is for two prominent Republicans.  Lets start with the GOP Senator from my great state of Ohio, the soon-to-retire (but not soon enough) George Voinovitch.

The latest thing Voinobitch has done to piss me off was signing up with the White House on Obama's "small business" "stimulus" bill.  I add all the quites because gimmicks and bullshit don't stimulate small business.  And Voinobitch should have known better.  But he has a record of pissing on principle to make a deal, expanding the imperial federal government every damned time.  To be honest, if he were running again, I'd vote Democrat JUST to get rid of his dumb ass.

Speaking of dumbasses to get rid of, there's House Majority Leader John Bo(eh)ner (take out the letters in parentheses when pronouncing his name, it's fun), also of Ohio.  He's not my congressman, but he is my sister's because his district snakes up from the Dayton area to the west of me, where said sister lives.  It would almost be worth it to move to run against him, because I think a good Tea Party candidate might put a scare into him.

He's playing the waffle game on keeping the Bush tax cuts (also known as RAISING TAXES IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION (which requires yelling, because it's a tax increase, period)).  With the Dems lining up to run commercials about Bo(eh)ner "opposing" "cutting taxes for the middle class" or whatever bullshit pseudo-truth blather they were going to pull from their ass, he came out Sunday saying if it came down to voting to keep only the middle class cuts of the Bush tax cut or letting taxes go up on everyone, he's vote to let the rich be soaked (not an exact quote).

On the political hand, I can understand stating a sad truth, that screwing only a few people over directly (and the rest indirectly) is better than screwing almost all taxpayers directly.  Fair enough.

But it's in finding these "compromises" that the Generally Obtuse Party leadership fails miserably.  Because coming out and saying you'll accept turning the tax code into more of a Communist redistribution scheme (from each/to each...), ESPECIALLY when you're not down to the vote, and you're coming up on an election where those Republicans without principle are dying politically (thanks to the efforts of the Tea Parties), and YOU'RE THE LEADER OF THE GO-F'ing-P!!!!!!!!11!!!1!  Hello, Boner, do you know what the hell leadership is?  It means having a spine.  It means drawing a line and not crossing it ahead of the idiots in your party (the RINOs, Voinobitch, McDouche).

In short, the waffling makes me want to move to your district (totally doable) just to get rid of your dumb ass. And if you're going to stay, at least let someone with testicles step up as the leader.

Which reminds me of what the GOP establishment has been doing, and how their candidates generally get their ass handed to them by Tea Party candidates.

And all the government growth and bullshit that marred the Bush administration (much thanks to Bo(eh)ner) and led to the takeover of 2008 and the election of Obama in 2008.

If the GOP was actually leading the way toward a principle rather than massaging Democrat nuts until they lose power, I'd be enthusiastic.  If they didn't lean toward political inbreeding, I'd be excited.  And if I didn't end up getting kicked in the teeth by the idiots I vote for (including Voinobitch and Bush), I would probably still count myself as a Republican.

Deed, not words, will determine whether the GOP will ever earn my respect again.


Toad734 said...

You really need to get off this"income redistribution" kick because it's bullshit.

Income redistribution is alive and well in this country but ever since Reagan it has flowed from the poor and middle class to the rich, not the other way around. And yes, government policies have helped make this happen. The middle class has shrunk, their wages have stayed stagnant, their wealth has decreased and they are working the longest hours in the world. The people living in extreme poverty has doubled since Carter. Income and wealth is being even more concentrated in the hands of a few and the wealthy have only gotten wealthier.

Those are the facts.

I agree Boner is a boner.

Another thing, Social Security isn't income redistribution, in fact, I pay a higher percentage of SS taxes than anyone making over $90k per year yet they will get the same amount I get when I retire and by the way, I actually worked for that money; it won't be a hand out for free.

dmarks said...

The claim of income redistribution from the poor to the rich, since Reagan, is entirely false.

Reagan did not cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor.

In fact, he cut taxes on all taxpayers, only a few of whom were rich.

Patrick is spot on here. The greedy demands of the left need to be pointed out.

They want government to be a vehicle by which the lazy and greedy get to prosper by shouting the loudest, at the expense of those who actually do something productive.

Jerry Critter said...

The "lazy and greedy" are the fat cats laying around the pool all day collecting their dividends and capital gains and only paying 15% taxes on them while the majority of hard working Americans are paying twice as much.

Pamela D. Hart said...

Toad: There is no way you pay a different SS tax amount than anyone else. SS and Medicare taxes are fixed percentages. SS being 6.2% of gross income and capped out at 106,800K; and Medicare is 1.45% with no cap. I do agree though that it's not a hand-out if you paid into it, but what about those who receive it and haven't paid into it? What do you call it then?

Patrick: I'm not too happy with Republicans either--haven't been for awhile and I can only hope that we get some TRUE Conservatives this November.

dmarks said...

Jerry: Most of these investors worked hard for what they risk, what they invest. So "lazy" is the last word to use for them.

Also, you have shown no examples of greed. Wanting to have less of your property plundered is not greed. It's their property, after all. They are not coveting anything that is anyone else's.

As for who paid what, these investors have already paid taxes on the money. A high amount. too.


Pamela: Want an answer? Freeloaders.

Jerry Critter said...

I don't think 15% is a high amount.

Greed is lobbying to lower your taxes more than everyone else. There is a reason that the increase in income of people in the top 95 percentile is about 5 times that of the people in the bottom 20 percentile under Republican presidents.

That's greed.

Toad734 said...


I actually don't think Reagan cut taxes for the poor. In fact, his rise in gasoline taxes, phone taxes, and cigarette taxes had a much greater impact on the poor than the rich. He may have cut income tax rates for the poor but I doubt it since most poor people don't pay taxes. What he did do though, that I am sure of, even if he did cut taxes for the middle class, was cut taxes for the rich at a substantially higher percentage than he did for anyone else. So the rich got not only a larger decrease in taxes but then they obviously benefited more than anyone else by a great deal and contrary to popular belief, it did anything but trickle down, it gushed up.

+1 Jerry,
Right, do you actually call what they were doing on Wall Street or Enron productive?? Inventing money out of thin air and counting debt as profit is anything but productive.


Exactly, Lets say I make 90k per year and pay the same rate (although a larger amount) than someone making 40k per year, A guy making $250,000 per year pays a much lower rate than I do and pays the same amount as I do. It's a regressive tax. If SS taxes were progressive like income tax, if the rich paid the same percentage of SS taxes as I did, we wouldn't be having a discussion about how SS "entitlements" are going to bankrupt the US.

And there are very few people today who are receiving SS that have never paid into it. However, I think I would rather them receive it than have to step over them in the streets as they are dying homeless and or robbing me for their next meal. These are our parents and grandparents we are talking about here. But if you don't value life and would just rather them starve I guess that is your right. No one is getting rich off their SS checks.


That reminds me of this saying I heard:

A Libertarian is a person who wants just enough government to keep people from stealing from him but a small enough government that allows him to steal from other people.

dmarks said...

Jerry: There's nothing greedy in asking to be robbed less. As for lobbying to have taxes lower than anyone else. do you have a quote to back this up?

I really doubt this is the case. These folks probably do not mind if other's taxes are lowered also, and would probably favor it also.

15% is excessive when you consider that the money has already been taxed, and that this tax provides a strong disincentive against investing in American businesses.

Toad: After the Reagan tax cuts, the rich paid a higher percentage of income tax than the non rich. This is the result of his policies. No way can you argue that this was skewed to the rich.

And it actually gushed down, with strong economic and job growth. The Dems answer? Cut off the trickle, so nothing flows down.

Perfect example was Clinton's greedy luxury tax on boats. Perfect example of greed: someone with plenty trying to rob more from others.

Anyway, this tax did not inconvenience the rich. They just moved their money elsewhere. But it did cause boat-building factory workers to get laid off.

As for the gas tax, Toad, do you have evidence that Reagan wanted this? Or did it come from the Democrats. It is typically Democrats who want us to pay much more than the real value for gasoline.

Ideally, we should get rid of all the extra taxes on gasoline, and have it be subject to the exact same sales tax as everyone else.

dmarks said...

Jerry: About the libertarian quote, does it makes sense? Can you name many libertarians who are/were thieves?

Jerry Critter said...

I heard another quote about Libertarians.

Libertarians are republicans that like to smoke dope and frequent prostitutes. (References to their stance on legalizing pot and prostitution.)

Reagan actually increases taxes several times, including the largest corporate tax increase in history and a $165 billion bailout of Social Security.

Toad734 said...


Really, which boat companies laid off workers? How many workers did they lay off?

Me thinks you are talking out of your ass again...which is par for the course.

The rich have always paid a larger percentage in taxes (aside from SS taxes) and that's the way it should be as they benefit the most from the American system and are also the ones who are writing the laws which favor themselves so you get what you pay for. I cannot get a private meeting from a Congressman nor can I draft new health care legislation but a billionaire CEO from Humana gets to do both so he should pay more in taxes. However, Reagan came in and cut income taxes for these people far more than what he did for anyone else and then raised taxes on everyone which disproportionately had a greater impact on the poor and middle class.

And of course, during this time the extremely poor got poorer (as he cut social services for them), the middle class had to work longer hours for the same wage and the rich got richer than ever before.

I am sure the rich are so appreciative of the fact that they have poor and middle class people like you fighting for their cause. The exploitation of the rich has gone on for too long and at last, they finally have a voice and can gather the power to fight back with people like you...Whom they are laughing at by the way.

Toad734 said...


Not to mention his multibillion dollar bail out for rich bankers in the S&L scandal. I hate all these big government Republicans.

Jerry Critter said...

Here is what republican economic policy does. It builds wealth for the top at the expense of everyone else. Notice that the big increase in executive compensation began with Reagan. No wonder his is their god.

dmarks said...

You really need to get off this obsession with people who are better at what they do than you are and thus earn more money. Do you seriously want the government to come in and cut people down to size because jealous people think they have created too much wealth?

There's a much better solution. One that is healthier for society overall: make your own wealth, and don't try to swipe it from those who do.

Also, the " It builds wealth for the top at the expense of everyone else" makes an entirely false assumption that wealth is a zero-some game. That's only true in government, but not the private sector.

Toad said:

"I am sure the rich are so appreciative of the fact that they have poor and middle class people like you fighting for their cause."

We, the ruled, are all in the same boat. Rich, poor, and middle class. The government is taking record amounts of our money and squandering it: those who are making the rules are getting the gold. The number of government employees getting rich off of forcibly-appropriated tax money has soared under Obama.

They already have plenty of money. They don't need to plunder more, matey.

Jerry Critter said...

What's right are Democratic policies that build income this way. Obsession has nothing to do with it.

Toad734 said...


Wait, you are of the opinion that rich people work for it?? Or that they are good at their jobs??

That is true for about 40% of them but the rest got it from mommy and daddy. The Bush family, the Kennedy's the Hiltons, Rockerfellars, Waltons, etc.

Sure Jobs, Gates, Buffet,Oprah, these people are good at their jobs and are self made but they are the minority when you talk about the richest 1%...They are also not creating jobs by the way.

And no, the government isn't squandering all of our money; you got that war with Iraq that you wanted didn't you? You got to work today, I assume not by boat but on a road or interstate HWY. You can read and write because of an education that I assume was at least partly if not fully subsidized by the federal government etc. But anyway, the richest 1% get their tax money back in the form of subsidies and corporate bailouts. I however do not get my money back but you instead chose not to fight for me but for the rich...Again, they are laughing at you.

You are letting the fox guard the hen house.

dmarks said...

Facts about the upper-income levels of the working class (millionaires as a whole). From "The Millionaire Next Door"

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.


I doubt the rich would be laughing at me. I opposed ALL of the bailouts, as did most Republicans. Can you say the same? If I had my way, not a penny would be given to the rich.

Jerry: I'm still waiting for even one example of an investor opposing lower taxes for those of lower incomes.

Jerry Critter said...

I never said they were opposed to lowering taxes. They just want their taxes lowered more than everyone else. Just look at the Bush tax cuts.

dmarks said...

OK, again, I ask. Evidence? ONE investor saying that they want their taxes lowered more than anyone else?

Yes, look at the Bush tax cuts. Most of which were for the middle class. And after his proposal was passed, the rich paid a higher percentage than the non-rich.

Toad734 said...


Those number represent whom exactly?? I can fudge the numbers by saying "millionaires" vs. people who earn a million per year, vs. people with over 1 million in assets vs. people who are the top .1%. Those are all very different classes of people there.

What I do know is that over half of the richest 15 Americans inherited their wealth and are not the job creators and in fact, most of them (Waltons) are the jobs destroyers...or at least their wealth was derived from a company that has forced more US companies into bankruptcy than any other.

dmarks said...

Toad: The top 1% are a tiny minority of even that group of over $250,000 whom Obama wants to raise taxes on (as part of making sure the Bush tax cuts expire, which is different from all the other tax cuts he is pushing).

"most of them (Waltons) are the jobs destroyers."

Check to see the number of jobs people working at Walmart have in total. You will see that they are the biggest job creators in the country. They do not force companies into bankruptcy. You can't blame Walmart for other companies making bad decisions. (i.e. the mom and pop stores which blame Walmart for going out of business when the fact was they overcharged and were hardly open at all).

Jerry Critter said...

WOW! If Walmart is the business model of the future, then we are well on our way to becoming a third world country.

You know, that the vast majority of Walmart employees are paid so low that they pay little or not income tax. Your vaulted top 1% will have to take on the whole burden of the federal government under the Walmart business plan.

Talk about tax increases...

dmarks said...

Jerry: Are you using "third world country" as a phrase without regard to its meaning? There aren't many Walmarts in third world countries, for one thing.

Yes, so many of the employees are paid low. Why? They are low skill jobs of low actual worth. Like the mom and pop store jobs, but the Walmart jobs actually pay better than those. But they do pay a fair, real-value wage.

As for the top 1%, it's not my "vaulted". It's Toad who is obsessed with them: the jealous greed that the haves direct at the have-mores.