Dirty Politics: The GOPs lowbrow attacks

There has always been an innate nastiness to political rhetoric. From the muckrakers of the 1800s, to the McCarthyism of the 1950's. But never has it been so nasty, so distasteful and so divisive as it is today. It's also never be so normal. Normal to question the integrity of an entire party, Normal to ensure the failure of a President through legislative blocking, normal to project an image of a traitor onto a sitting president. And yet here we are, in 2012, being pummeled ceaselessly by political ads and rhetoric that not only lie, & obfuscate, but make it seem that the president himself isn't even an American citizen.

In the center of this is a party that uses every dirty trick in the book to ensure a sitting president is not only defeated in November, but derided as a complete failure. Not only do they wish to tarnish the image of a sitting president, but they even went so far as to attempt to destroy his signature achievement, one that they came up with in the first place, one that would help millions of Americans, and one that they offer no replacement for.

I am of course referring to the GOP, a party struggling to find itself after the eight dismal years of George W. Bush. Who have found themselves being cascaded further right by its fringe elements. So far in fact that the moderate conservatives have been leaving the party altogether.

Over the weekend former Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, even went so far as endorse Barack Obama.

So as the fringe right continues to take control of the Republican party the attacks against the President, and the Democrats become even more nasty, and divisive. Now I do know that even Democrats can get nasty, I wont deny that, but I think in many instances the Democrats claims are usually backed up with facts, whereas   many Republican ads are completely made up.

Take the Romney Welfare ad that charges Obama with taking the work out of Welfare. Essentially saying that people on Welfare will no longer need to train for a job but instead; "They just send you your welfare check." This line of attack has been completely made up.

Even though the ad has been fact checked again and again being shown to be completely dishonest, Romney is doubling down by charging that the Obama welfare waivers are just an effort to shore up the base.

Which is funny because the wealthiest among us are receiving tons of corporate welfare in the case of subsidies, tax breaks, and oh yeah, bailouts.

That's not even close to being the nastiest attacks.

Rep. Allen West, from Florida in a nod to McCarthy accused most of the Democratic party of being Communists. Former Gov. John Sununu insinuated that the President doesn't understand America and is somehow foreign. Reince Preibus has said that the President looks toward Europe for his policies. All of them regularly call Obama and his policies "Socialist" and make charges that he wants to make America into Europe. The insanity just doesn't stop.

There is also the various Nazi references to President Obama, as well as comparing him to Stalin.

Nasty.

Of course a side effect of all this blind hateful rhetoric being thrown around all the time is that we've become accustomed to hearing the word Socialist, Communist, European being tossed around by the candidates and even the leaders of the Republican party. We've become desensitized to these labels that are frankly not even used correctly. Ask most people and they don't even understand the word Socialism, or even the word Liberal anymore. Fact is that Nazi-ism and Communism are complete opposites in theory. Nazi-ism is a very nationalist right wing idea, that espouses racial purity, anti-homosexual attitudes, anti-worker, anti-abortion, pro corporation, statist, and anti-civil rights themes.

Even worse are the charges of the president not even being a citizen, Trumped up by of course, birther king Donald Trump. He gets help from birther queen Orly Taites, and even Mitt Romney who claims to have made a poor joke to his base during a speech in my home state of Michigan. This rhetoric works quite well, in a 2011 poll 1 in 4 Americans think that Obama wasn't even born in the U.S.

But is it really the leaders who have lurched the party so far to the right, or is it the base?

That's a difficult question to ask, but no one can deny the base is responsible for electing these leaders. I remember during the debates, how the crowd was cheering about executions of possibly innocent people in Texas. How about during the video of the gay soldier serving his country being booed just for being gay and wanting to be open about who he is. Even worse is the subject of the man without health insurance, and how we should just "let him die" which drew massive applause. Then there's the Hank William Jr's, the bloggers, hell even a couple of my old friends from Facebook believe in this terrible stuff.

The question I have here, is what came first? The leaders spouting this crap, or the base influencing the leaders? Maybe it's both, or maybe its the coding, the language and the deluge of false information in the media.

The guns, god, and gays agenda of the right wing, wrapping all of those things up with patriotism and charge those who wish to regulate guns, keep god out of the legislature, and allow gays to marry as un-American, socialist, commu-nazis is an example of how the worst of American culture can be allowed to wield so much power in our government.

I don't however believe that the majority of  America is like this. In fact I can prove just how disgusted America is with all the nasty politics. The low approval numbers say it all. So maybe it's just a matter of time before the politicians start being civil again.

I think before that happens the Republican party may have to self-destruct. Maybe then it can regain its collective sanity and again become a party we can actually work with to solve the real problems facing our great nation.

Flat Tax: Flatly Unfair

So I had an interesting discussion this morning with a conservative, a nice fellow overall but he had some rather poor notions about certain things our government is doing. Now I can go on about the poor things our government is doing right now but that's a different article for a different day.

Our discussion grazed the topic of spending, debt and welfare programs, specifically Pell Grants. As a college student and someone who doesn't have a full time job yet I depend on Pell grants to help offset the costs of college when I graduate. While talking about these programs that help the poor we eventually made our way into taxes. I mentioned to him that Mitt Romney paid only 13% in taxes in the returns that he has released, and under the Romney/Ryan plan he proposed people like Mitt would only pay a whopping 0.82% in taxes. This is only for people making over 1 million dollars a year and by dropping capital gains taxes to zero. Ultimately benefiting the richest among us at the expense of everyone else.

He preceded to tell me that I was mad at Romney for his success, and that taxing rich people is a "punishment" for their success.

I'm always astounded how a larger tax rate on millions of dollars is a punishment, I'd love to be in the position to be punished the way the wealthy supposedly are. Give me 20 Million and then tax me at 50%, who cares I'd still have 10 MILLION dollars.

If you can't live comfortably off $10 Million then there is something wrong with you, and it's not the tax code.

And after he uttered that little right wing talking point gem, he said something along the lines of; "and that's why we need a flat tax, so everyone pays the same."

Everyone pays the same?

I've heard this argument before, and it always bugs me, simply because it's a distorted version of fairness that is so simple, so easy to believe but in reality makes no sense and doesn't account for the massive inequality it would create. Just like other right wing policies I know of.

A flat tax is not a fair tax, and it's not something that works in reality, at least not if you want a strong middle class. It makes the poor pay more, and the rich pay less. The rates may seem fair, but the impact is disproportionate. The rich will simply get richer and the poor, poorer.

Not only that but the loss of revenue from the rich paying less will not be made up by the broadening of the tax base. This will lead to massive cuts in social programs that also impact the poor as they are the ones who rely on those programs.

Talk about kicking people when they're down, all so Mitt Moneybags Romney can get a tax cut?

Fuck that.

Libertarians: GOP drones minus the culture war

It was only a matter of time until I came after the Ron Paul revolution. It's kind of sad because in quite a few ways libertarians are an ugly breed of both Liberals and Conservatives, shunned by Liberals and existing as the red headed stepchild of the conservative movement and yet, people my age seem to find them so endearing.

Libertarianism marries the best of the free thinking Liberal ideas of gay rights, anti-war, pro drug legalization, and get rid of big brother watching you and stay out my business sentiment. Because what Liberal enjoys being watched by the Government and harassed for no reason right? It also combines the worst of conservative top-down economics that have killed our economy, stalled wages, and polluted our air and water (see fracking) for 30 years.

The Libertarian premise is simple, cut taxes, cut government, let everyone do what they want, and somehow magically everyone becomes responsible, altruistic, wealthy and super happy.

Really?

Libertarianism is actually quite a selfish doctrine. The main tenet is about advancing the self and nothing else, no collective roads or bridges, everyone is out for themselves. If you Fuck up then its your fault, your responsibility, and if you need help that's just too bad because why should I give up what's mine to help you? Taxes are considered a punishment on everyone, and therefore should be as low as possible, for everyone.

Yeah, just what Exxon Mobil needs; another tax cut.

Libertarians believe that you alone have the power to make your own destiny as long as you work hard. If you succeed you did so because you were awesome, you work harder then others, you were smarter, and you had no one to thank for your success but you.

Let me a blow a hole in that load of BS

You do have the power to succeed, but you only learned what you needed to know to succeed by going to a school, maybe a public, maybe a private school. But you had a teacher that also went to school, spent his or her money on college to learn the things they ended up teaching you. Sometimes those teachers used their own money to provide supplies, sometimes they spent time with you after school to help you with those pesky geometry problems you had a hard time with. Sometimes they even inspired you.

Now we also cannot forget the school itself, built with the pure evil that is socialism. Its socialist buses picked you up from your house for free. The school had free water fountains, and heating in the winter. If you were poor you had free lunches. Remember those monkey bars you played on all the time? Socialism.

Odds are you lived on a street with a paved road that allowed you to get to your first job. You had electricity from power lines laid by the government, you had clean running water from public aquifers that you could drink and bathe in. You had inspectors making sure your food was not toxic or infected with E. Coli. If you own a business that uses the Internet, you should thank the Federal government for laying the foundation for it.

All of that stuff helped you survive, and thrive, so you could focus on learning and working hard to get where you are today. It's a collective effort, everyone gets the same basic foundation in which to succeed, of course people are more successful due to the effort they put in but we all have to pay for these simple things like roads, bridges, schools, firefighters, cops, teachers, food inspectors, power lines and all the other infrastructure we use.

The argument from Libertarians is "Why punish people for being successful." I ask, how is paying more taxes on having more money a punishment? If you have more money you're already better off than someone with less, so if we take a fair amount from someone with a larger income, and use it to help someone who has less live a better life, or become successful himself then what's the harm. It's not as if we ask millionaires to give up all their wealth in taxes, they're entitled to a large share of the wealth they earned.

But, and here's the but, the wealthy have more, and have used more resources to get wealthy. So why shouldn't they pay more? If you ask someone who makes 20 million a year to pay 5 million, they still have 15 million, that's an incredible amount of money. More than enough to survive extremely comfortably. Even if you ask them to pay 15 million out of 20 million in taxes, they still have 5 million. Compare that to the guy who makes $60,000 a year. That is over $4.4 Million a year more that the rich guy still has compared to the middle income guy. That is roughly 73 times more money a year that the wealthy person makes in the same amount of time. And that is even after taxing the shit of the rich guys initial 20 million.

Let that one sink in

After seeing those numbers I don't understand how anyone can see that a progressive tax system on the wealthy is punishment. Hell I wish I was rich, I'd gladly take that punishment if it meant I made 73 times more than a middle class wage earner!

Libertarianism is nothing but a right wing tool to bring in those people who uncomfortable with the GOPs culture war but want to continue the economic policies of more tax cuts for the wealthy and more deregulation. So why are so many kids my age enthralled at this? It's all about messaging, you tell these young college kids that they're awesome because they worked hard and tell them that they'd be rich if only the government would get out of their way. Throw in some stuff about Pot, and why they shouldn't have to help the lazy (poor) or the people who didn't save for retirement (seniors) and you get all these 20 somethings who can't wait to willingly fuck themselves over in the future because they think they know it all.

Well played Ayn Rand, well played.

Why Trickle Down equals Trickle Dumb

Of all the cracked out, nutty ideas that have been floated from the right wing, supply-side "voodoo" economics has to be the one that makes the least sense. Let's break down the simple premise here. Supply side economics simply states that if you give more money to people who are already fabulously wealthy, that will somehow cause the wealth fairy to sprinkle riches all over the rest of society and we'll all be happy. I'll tell you one thing, for the last thirty years we've been sprinkled with something from those at the top, and it ain't wealth.

The whole idea that continuously cutting the tax rates for the people at the top 1% of the wealth spectrum and how that will somehow create more wealth and increase governmental revenue is whole lotta bullshit that only a third grader will think is a great idea.

Here's why. Rich people do not create jobs.

Okay, now that you have gotten out of the way of any shrapnel that came from conservative heads exploding around you I will explain how things actually work.

Rich people are a consequence of capitalism, not the source.

In our system of capitalism businesses are successful because they provide a product or service to the people. The consumer decides the value of the product or service through choice, they will buy it if the product is worth the price, if not they will go to a competitor. In our society choice is the greatest tool and the consumer is the greatest asset.

Businesses can produce widgets to sell all day, but if no one has the money to buy them, that business will fail. That is why the middle class is so important, the middle class holds up the top and keeps the bottom from falling out. When the middle class has disposable income it can use to buy products and services those businesses that provide them reap the reward, that in turn puts money into government coffers through progressive taxation that fund roads and bridges, schools and firehouses, teachers, cops, firemen, post office workers, well you get the picture. It helps keep all those people into middle class jobs, which feeds this circle of wealth.

What happens when you take that wealth out and shift it to the top? It just sits there for the most part. Yes some of it gets donated to good causes, some of it used to buy things like Yachts, but most of it sits there, usually somewhere in the Caymans. It literally leaves that closed circle of wealth I described above. That's a big problem, less wealth in the system means our roads and bridges start to fall apart, teachers and firemen get laid off and the poor get essential services cut, and government debt soars. Sound familiar?

Now if you're a conservative reader that is still reading this far, first off, Kudos to you. You're probably saying "Silly Lib, poor people don't create jobs. *snort* I want to say that is one of the most simplistic, idiot statements that comes from the right. Ever heard of a guy named Bill Gates? He didn't start rich, he was an innovator, built computers in his garage, and he sure wasn't getting capital gains. Yet I'm pretty sure most of you are reading this on a machine with Microsoft Windows installed.

Henry Ford wasn't rich, Thomas Edison wasn't rich, but they all had another thing in common, they created something which led to jobs. The rich candle makers didn't innovate, they wanted to keep selling candles, the light bulb replaced those candles and therefore created new jobs, because light bulbs led to lamps, fluorescent light bulbs and whole world of new stuff that also needed people to make them, poof, jobs!

Henry Ford created the mass assembly line and good paying jobs, therefore allowing regular people to buy his cars, which made him quite wealthy. History is replete with regular people with an idea that challenges or replaces an older idea and creates a tidal wave or new jobs and innovation.

Few of those people started out wealthy, and few of the wealthy innovate and therefore, create jobs.

So why are we as a nation rewarding those who don't create new jobs, or innovate and create new ideas and are already extremely rich off older ideas and have no reason to change the status quo?

Because big business has bought those who create tax policy, this is why regular people with new ideas are crushed. Why solar and wind and other "green" energy technologies are underfunded and constantly derided by the corporate media and the right wing. I've heard of many stories of regular guys in their garages creating cars that will run on water or have created their own bio diesels or even converted their cars into electric powered vehicles. Yet they are constantly crushed by a business and state that is profiting massively off keeping things the way they are.


Supply side is an effort to take from everyone else what the person taking it already has a lot of, it's literally Romney-hood.