All joking aside, I really want somebody to explain the allegiance that some still have to this party. I've asked this question on message boards over the past few election cycles, and have yet to see a single republican offer a single valid justification for their vote. I'm still searching for that lone answer.
What exactly is it that draws people to this party these days? And, I'm not talking about the upper 1/10 of 1% that would actually be stupid to vote anything BUT republican. I'm talking about the roughly 50% of the lower 99%, and in particular, the lower 95%...those earning less than $250k annually.
What is the attraction to this party at this point? Help me understand this phenomenon. Every single issue that they've pretended to have cornered over the past 30 years has been fully abandoned, or exposed as entirely a fraud. What's left?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
Well, that seems a given! I really want some serious responses from actual republicans, though. There's GOT to be some rational that they consider worthy, for voting for this party at this point, and I'm really curious to see what that might be, given that the party has thrown away everything that it ever claimed to stand for.
"Maybe it's like when you're on the playground and there's Georgie O'Putz who's terrifying everyone. You have two choices: defy him and get beaten down, or cozy up to him and try to share in the spoils. "
Maybe, but I honestly think that there are some very sincere folks who're voting republican, and they apparently are unaware that their party has abandoned them.
They do not believe that the government is the solution for everything
They do not believe in raising taxes.
They believe in standing up for Americans and protecting them at home and abroad with force of necessary
Republicans believe that we all have to have personal responsibility for our actions to enjoy freedom.
Republicans think the government has ruined education why should we let them run healthcare.
Republicans believe that Government should not give handouts to people just because they were born Americans and refuse to work to have sucess.
Prejudice isn't just about race or religion or gender, and it isn't always "away" from something. It literally means to pre-judge, to have a pre-existing slant or decision, often one that is not re-assessed periodically to see if it's worthy of keeping in place or updating.
There's a John Prine song, Grandpa Was a Carpenter, with the last line of the chorus: "Voted for Eisenhower 'cause Lincoln won the war." That sort of logic, even though one man is not the other -- loyalty to the one meant voting for the other without question.
I do believe "No Child Left Behind" is a Republican NeoCon program that totally messed up the educational system, with teachers too burdened and busied with mandates to actually *teach* their subject matter. I know of one local school that had to dump all its music and arts programs, and then jettisoned its classes on citizenship, all for trying to comply with NCLB. Bad program from bad politicians.
If they really gave a damn, they'd have just funded education better and stopped trying to raise a generation of sheep to vote for them.
That is so true Clark. Many or maybe most Republicans do not know there are now two Republican parties. The is the GOP (Grand old Party) and the more recent new GOP (Government Over People) that believes the government should have absolute power.
That was and is the reason Ron Paul stayed with the Republicans, To lead them back to the way they were before the Neo Conservative, One Worlders got so entrinched.
That is the whole purpose of the RON PAUL REPUBLICANS.
We can not afford endless wars of agression, policing the world, welfare programs for foreign nations. We are fast loosing the value of the dollar, once the standard. Our economy is in the dumps and sinking fast because of the new republicans. We NEED to get back to being a Constitutional Republic regardless of which party is in power.
So, why do they insist upon exploding the size of the government?
"They do not believe in raising taxes."
Aha! They've GOT you! They may not come right out and say that their federal policies are going to raise your taxes, but I can assure you that they DO cause you pay more for living expense, AND state, county, and local taxes! Funding for critical programs, such as education, is gutted at the federal level, which forces states and cities to raise taxes and/or cut services in order to make up the difference.
Addtionally, republican borrow and spend gluttony creates devaluation of the dollar, inflation, and recession, all of which force you to pay more for basic living expenses.
It's subtle and indirect, but it's absolutely the result of republican federal policies, make no mistake about it. If you like what the US is going through right now, and what it's gone through periodically with every republican president over the past 3 decades, by all means, keep voting republican.
"They believe in standing up for Americans and protecting them at home and abroad with force of necessary"
Ok, this one is pure, unadulterated nonsense. Our borders are STILL wide open , going on 7 years after 9/11. Our chemical and nuke plants, the same. Our rail lines, same. Our airlines, virtually wide open, with an occassional federal agency reporting that they've been able to sneak faux weapons past "security" with no difficulty whatsoever. Our electrical power grid is wide open, our seaports are virtually wide open, and, oh, btw, OBL is still roaming freely and al Qaeda is stronger than ever.
Get real.
"Republicans believe that we all have to have personal responsibility for our actions to enjoy freedom."
This is another joke, right? Illegal spying on US citizens, stripping away of civil rights and habeus corpus, the loss of posse comitatus, illegal detentions and renditions, torture, etc.
As for personal responsibility, how can you even suggest this after what we've witnessed from republican politicians over the past 8 years? How much personal responsibility has Bush taken for his utter failures and his outright lies? How about Karl Rove's manipulating of elections? How about Scooter Libby? How about any number of other overtly corrupt republicans of the past several years? How much personal responsibility are you REALLY seeing from your party? Be honest with yourself.
"Republicans think the government has ruined education why should we let them run healthcare."
Education IS screwed up, and the federal government HAS played a role in that, but privatization of our healthcare system is a complete disaster that will destroy us as a nation eventually. I hardly think that's the answer for education. In fact, there is very little evidence that either publicly funded or private education outperforms the other. Both are pretty abysmal right now.
As for healthcare, this nation is very fortunate to have 3 working examples to compare, privatized, socialized, and single payer. Socialized medicine is what our politicians and military receives. It ranks among the best care in the world by both caregivers and patients. It's not without merit to note that the aftercare treatment that resulted in rats crawling through facilities of the VA had been privatized.
Single payer healthcare is exemplified by our medicare system, which is a pure model of efficiency. Millions of Americans are extremely satisfied with this program, and it costs all of 2-3% to administer.
Privatized healthcare is what shovels mountains of the nation's wealth to pharmaceutical and insurance companies, to find ways to keep people sick, but alive. It also reserves the right to treat only those with wealth (at least enough wealth to afford insurance), and to treat only those that they feel are worthy of treatment. There are countless tragic stories of people being booted from their coverage because fo catastrophic illnesses that they've developed.
As a result of the exhorbitant costs of insurance, the insurance compaines reserving the right to pay or not, and healthcare delivery facility's focus on profits, 18,000 people die in this country every single year, as a direct result of the failure of our privatized system. It is a national disgrace.
We pay twice as much per capita than the next highest paying nation in the world, yet rank an abysmal #37, and leave 47 million uninsured. The leading cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical costs. It is entirely unacceptable, in the richest nation in the world, that 18,000 people die, 47 million go uninsured, we pay more than twice what any nation on the planet pays yet rank a paltry #37, and our nation is going bankrupt, all so that we can protect the profitability of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and see to it that their CEO's can walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement packages. It's assinine, it's deadly, it's sub-human, and it's unAmerican, and it simply MUST end.
"Republicans believe that Government should not give handouts to people just because they were born Americans and refuse to work to have sucess. "
This is a laugher. What did George Bush do to "earn" his $13 million when he owned a tiny percentage of the Texas Rangers (a share that was given to him by one of his daddy's pals, no less)? He used his position as governor of the state to manipulate the public into funding a brand new stadium, and then he simply sold his share. No, the government sure didn't give him a handout now, did they?
How about the corporate war profiteers that are currently robbing our treasury? WTF have THEY done, other than be loyal bush supporters, and be granted no-bid contracts to rape and pillage as they saw fit?
How about the entire endless parade of corporate profiteers that line up at the public trough on a daily basis? How did Ross Perot gather his wealth? How about that pig Frist? His family owned a string of HMO's that profited from public coffers, and even performed abortions in doing so.
And, nearly every single one of those corporate pigs and rightwing political pigs that's made their millions upon millions of dollars from PUBLIC MONEY, only got the opportunity to do so because they born into wealth. Their parents had the money to keep them away from crime-infested streets, get them into decent schools, and push them through college.
What about those who're NOT born into wealth, and have to grow up in the streets, and have virtually no opportunity for proper education? Screw them, right? Let them die and rot in the streets. They don't deserve to have a chance at the American dream, because they weren't born wealthy. Those who have wealth deserve it, and those who do not deserve that.
The sad fact is, many of the points that you make, while you clearly believe in them, are simply not republican principles and values. Your party has abandoned you.
That's a great line, and it's absolutely true.
"That was and is the reason Ron Paul stayed with the Republicans, To lead them back to the way they were before the Neo Conservative, "
Perhaps, but he is a libertarian more than a republican. There is a stark difference. Even republicans recognize that you cannot gut the ENTIRE social safety net.
You're correct in that republicans are destroying this nation with their reckless, abusive, intrusive, extremely costly, illegal activities. They aren't that new, though, truth be told. This movement of neoconservatism has been around since the 1950's, and remarkably, is a mirror image of the Islamic fundamentalism that is destroying the middle east.
There's an amazing documentary that points out this relationship between rightwing fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism that the BBC produced, called "The power of nightmares." It's available online, in three parts. Google and watch it.
Funny, but the facts simply do not support your misguided beliefs, for some odd reason.
Here's a little tidbit that your propagandists have apparently forgotten to let you in on:
BOTH parties spend the public's money. There's no getting around that. You can pretend all you want that republicans somehow are magically immune from spending tax money, but you're dead wrong, and I think you know it. In fact, historically, at least over the past 3 decades, republicans have MASSIVELY swelled the size and spending of the federal government, while a democrat, during that same period, SHRUNK it.
Be that as it may, back to the discussion of spending...
The difference between the two parties isn't that one will spend while the other will not. That's a myth that's been perpetrated by rightwing propagandists for decades, but it's simply not true.
There are two key differences, and they're critically important to recognize.
1) Democrats will pay for what they spend, through either revenue enhancement or budget cuts. By "revenue enhancement," I'm referring to, of course, tax increases, BUT, it's important to recognize that democrats realize the importance of the middle class, and therefore are NOT likely at all to raise taxes on that majority of the population. Instead, taxes will be raised for those who can MOST afford it. Since progressive taxation has proven itself, over the course that it's been in use to produce more job growth and more economic growth than regressive taxation, this is a welcome change.
Republicans, on the other hand, spend money that we do not have. Since 1981, republicans have added nearly $9 trillion in debt. The reason for this is simple. Massive debt spending gives them an excuse to gut social spending (while massively increasing military spending, of course), and it cripples the effectiveness of the federal government, so that they can fulfill their statement that "government doesn't work." Of course it won't, if you gut funding and put incompetent cronies in charge, but that's part of the dirty little secret that republican propagandists never mention.
The other side of failed republican economic policies, of course, is regressive taxation. Now, they don't come right out and say that they're going to ram large increases down the throats of the vast majority of America, but that's precisely what happens as a result of their regressive policies.
They slash taxes on the upper class, dramatically increase corporate welfare spending, gut social and infrastructure spending, and in a matter of months or a couple years, the "trickle down" effect takes hold, and states, counties, and cities are forced to cut back on provided services (making it necessary for anyone who relies upon said services to PAY for them, or at least to pay MORE for them than before), and increase taxes, in order to make up the loss in federal funding.
Additionally, the massive debt load causes a devaluation of the dollar, which causes inflation, which creates job losses, which creates recession. It's the inevitable result of failed GOP economics policies.
2) Democrats invest in the future of America. Republicans invest in corporate CEO's, military hardware, and war.
Democrats rightfully recognize the fact that, without investment in infrastructure, America will cease to grow. Any businessman knows that if you're not moving forward, you're moving backward. Democrats refuse to find it acceptable for America to move backwards. Everything that benefits citizens benefits the whole of society, and therefore benefits all of America.
Democrats recognize that, without safe roadways and transportation systems, safe drinking and sanitation water, reliable electricity, effective communications systems, police and fire protection, a court system, acceptable healthcare, proper education, etc. being made available to ALL Americans, all of America would suffer and, as a result, would never be as great as it could be.
The Chinese recognized this recently, and, over the past 15-20 years, poured massive money and effort into building out their infrastructure. The result is that China is now poised to be the world's leading economic juggernaut for the next 100 years.
Meanwhile, republicans have driven the US backwards, by gutting funding for infrastructure, while at the same time shipping jobs overseas. Sad.
Republicans spending is focused almost entirely on corporate welfare...handing billions of public money to millionaires. Their deluded belief is that, somehow, magically, by handing over massive wealth to the already wealthy, they will feel this sudden urge to pass it around the country, to those with less. It doesn't work.
Since this dumb economic policy was introduced again (the 1920's was the first episode, and we all know what that round resulted in) in 1981, wages for the middle class have stagnated, and have even begun to fall backwards, while incomes of the upper 1%, and especially the upper 1/10 of 1%, have risen exponentially. They're not sharing the government-handed wealth.
So, in a nutshell, both parties will spend our money. Democrats will find a way to pay as they go. Republicans will drag America's future down by strapping future generations with massive, insurmountable debt.
Democrats will invest in America's future. Republicans will invest in America's CEO's.
That's it.
"The Founders were able to skip an enormous swath of political difficulties by simply ignoring the slave problem and setting things in motion for an inevitable Civil War they were too exhausted to fight. Things are more complicated now with non-whites counting as a whole citizen and not just the three-fifths they Compromised on when setting up your precious Libertarian Republic. Don't talk to us about economics and The Founders as if the world they lived in had any social relevance to our own. "
Of course they skipped over areas. They were trying to form a government from the ground up and areas were not addressed at the founding but provisions were provided to correct areas that were left out .
They had to ignore the Slave problem in order to hold the union together. It was their plan for it to be readdressed when the Nation could better handle the issue. Unfortunatly it was handled before the Nation was ready, but it was.
Sorry but basic economics are all the same it does not matter what you are dealing with the principles are the same. A tax is a tax today or in 1776. Dismissing the founder just shows the limits people go in order to avoid dealing with the democrats dismantling the American Dream in favor of a handout society.
MDP, you just don't get it. When you hand welfare tax breaks to millionaires and pass along the tax increases to the lower 99%, you hurt the economy. Check your facts. The economy performs better under progressive, not regressive taxation.
"Those that you consider "can afford it" use their money to invest in America already."
Yeah they do. That's why they've got their money and their companies invested overseas. Again, check your facts. The neocons have been handing massive tax welfare checks to millionaires for the past 27 years. The moment it began, middle class wages stagnated, and have now fallen back, while at the same time, the incomes of those millionaires has increased exponentially. They don't share. The facts speak for themselves. Your disproven, false, rightwing talking points do not.
"Yes their has been deficeit spending lately but,"
Lately? Name a republican president in the past 3 decades that has had a balanced budget. Good luck. You're living in la-la land. You've been duped. Time to wake up now.
"I will advocate for much more government spending cuts then you ever would"
Wanna bet? I would take $900 billion away from the military tomorrow. Top that.
"You want to make this about class warfare that fine, but the purpose of government is not to distribute money."
And yet, this is PRECISELY what you neocons have done. You've funneled the wealth of the nation into the hands of the upper 1%. Why don't you know that? Are you that much unaware of what's going on around you?
"It is the job of government to provide basic protection and a very few enumerated things."
Such as trillions in corporate welfare handouts, right? Again, the difference between republicans and democrats is not in how much they spend, but rather in whether or not they pay for what they spend, and where the wealth goes. If you're a democrat, you invest in the betterment of the entire nation. If you're a republican, you shovel the wealth towards the upper 1% and say "Screw the rest."
"Those that work hard and try to succeed will do just that"
Oh, so a person that's been raised in poverty, has had no access to higher education, and works 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs just to barely squeak by is not working "hard?" But, Paris Hilton, who won the gene pool lottery and never has to lift a finger her entire life as a result, has "earned" what she's got, right? You people are truly some sick, twisted minds.
"That is what our founders intended. "
You haven't a clue what the founders intended. They feared and despised the concentration of excessive wealth, and corporations. They championed equality for all. Pretty much the exact opposite of today's republicans.
So how would you solve that Clark? Have all inheritance taken because the beneficiaries didn't "earn" it? Or would you set a limit on how much inheritance is allowed and anything over that is confiscated?
Progressive taxation.
"Have all inheritance taken because the beneficiaries didn't "earn" it?"
The inheritence tax worked very well. It allowed a modest amount of wealth to be passed tax free, and taxed inherited wealth that was above and beyond what anyone would deem modest. I'd re-instate that tax and raise the trigger to $2m.
Consider what the republicans have proposed (but, thankfully, haven't been able to ramrod through quite yet): A billionaire dies and leaves his entire billion dollar estate to his daughter, Paris. Paris never has to work a day in her life, yet she will command a considerable amont of the public commons to support her lavish, queen-like lifestyle.
She invests her wealth in dividend-producing stocks, and, over the course of her life, manages to grow her massive wealth significantly, and entirely tax free, thanks to the elimination of taxes on dividends.
By the time she croaks at the age of 75, her estate is worth around $5 billion. She passes this entire wealth onto her child, entirely tax free. Her child has never had to lift a finger during her entire life, yet has more wealth than many nations.
Her child lives out his entire life, making far more use of the public commons than average Americans, due to his lavish, king-like lifestyle. He never pays a penny in federal taxes throughout his entire life.
He invests his wealth in tax-free dividend-producing stocks, and manages to grow his wealth significantly before he dies, at the age of 75. At that time, he passes his $10 billion estate onto his lone heir, entirely tax free. His child has never had to work a day in his life, and will never have to do so at any time throughout his life.
He invests that wealth in tax-free dividend-producing stocks, grows the estate to $18 billion by the time he dies at the age of 75, and then passes that entire $18 billion estate onto his lone heir, who has never had to work a day in his life, and will never have to do so.
Catching the pattern here at all? Does this seem fair and equitable to you? Does this seem like it's something that our founding fathers would've been in support of? Bear in mind that they had just wholly rejected the idea of aristocracy altogether.
Meanwhile, consider the fate of the Smith family, who was born into poverty, and has struggled with menial, hard labor, minimum wage jobs since the dawn of the nation. They have little access to opportunity for advancement, because they cannot afford a vehicle, they cannot afford a decent education, and the republicans have gutted funding for libraries, and the one nearest to them, 5 miles away, was closed down years ago.
Because the area in which they live is the only affordable place that they could find, they have to live with excessive crime, and are constantly exposed to and are witnesses to numerous crimes of varying degrees of seriousness, including theft, vandalism, robbery, rape, and even murder. They literally live in the sewer, and have no way out, because they cannot afford to leave.
Both parents work 14-16 hours per day, just to try to make ends meet and feed their 3 children, who go to school in a run down, violence-ridden public building. Their teachers, despite their best efforts, are unable to really teach, because they spend their days policing unruly, violent behavior.
The parents would love nothing more than to find a way to get ahead, but they cannot afford higher education, and wouldn't have time for it even if they could. They cannot qualify for government grants, because they "earn to much." Because republicans gutted education funding, they also cannot qualify for enough scholarship money to pay the ever-rising costs of education, so they are stuck where they're at.
Their children, being constantly exposed to crime and drug abuse all around them, 24/7, become attached to street gangs at a very early age, and are soon being arrested for crimes such as vandalism and theft, as well as drug possession. By the time they reach the age of 16, they've got lengthy criminal records, and a life pattern has been set and ingrained into them.
When they reach 18, and can be tried as adults for their crimes, they are, and are sent to prison. When they get out, they cannot get hired into a decent job with a future, because they have no experience and they have a criminal record. IF they somehow avoid continuing a criminal life, and choose to go the straight and narrow, they settle for a menial, hard labor position somewhere at, or near minimum wage. The pattern continues.
Oh, and when these folks die, they don't have to worry about estate taxes. They worry about how to come up with the tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses incurred during the transistion to death, and the thousands of dollars in funeral costs. THAT is what their parents pass onto them.
Two Americas. Sleep well. Vote your conscience.
Plus, they make sure that my opinions are worth more than those of educated people, cause you can't believe in science anyway.
A great big fat Elephant.
It likes to sit in water and also it likes to eat a lot of food.
Parents works hard so kids don't have to and kids are bad because parents worked hard. So punish the kid because parents worked hard and kids didn't have to.
Is that how it works?
P.C." What happened to freedom of speech? I would MUCH rather have someone catch me at contradicting myself and forcing me to explain what i intended to say as opposed to having a bunch of people saying a variety of things and having to interpret what they meant by that,as opposed to their trying to treat me and what i say in the "politically correct" arena! i am SICK and TIRED of this p.c. crap,my dad always taught me to say what i mean and mean what i say and it makes me weary trying to "interpret" what other folks are saying,or what games they may be playing!As far as the term,"offending"? I meant that almost sarcastically,as I,like you,can't stand the term! Please don't take it to heart! As for the rest,I guess we'll let Clark speak for himself,i,personally,believe he will do a more eloquent job of it than i could ever pretend to! Sorry i misunderstood your response as I thought it directed towards me! sincerely,mark w!
I like what Sean Connery said once "Always tell the truth. Then it's the other person's problem then."