GOP Priorities
As if we were in any doubt, we now know the real and absolute priority of the Republican party – tax cuts for the super-rich. They are now on record as saying that everything else will be held up until these cuts are extended.
They have callously refused to extend unemployment benefits to the most vulnerable in the greatest downturn since the Great Depression, on the fallacious grounds of cost (the cost is a mere drop in the bucket next to the cost of upper-income tax cuts). Already, 800,000 people have been cut off. This will rise to 2 million by January, and 6 million by the Spring. As always, the voice of the poor holds no sway in political deliberations.
What else is being held hostage? How about the DREAM Act, the plan to give citizenship to children bought to the United States by their parents. This pro-family piece of legislation is strongly supported by the USCCB.
It gets far worse. The START treaty is also caught in the crosshairs, with the GOP willing to sacrifice nuclear arms reduction for rewarding the wealthy. This issue is regarded by the Church as a core pro-life issue, relating to the sanctity of human life. And yet the so-called pro-life party doesn’t seem to care.
This goes way beyond ideology. This is wicked.
Trackbacks
- Ready, Set, Go! « A Feather Adrift
- “Wilfully ignorant, borderline heretical, self justification” « Vox Nova
Comments are closed.
I guess we can say the first three big initiatives of the GOP are to attack the Catholic Church — UI, DREAM and START.
How anyone could vote for them is beyond me. Is this the holiness that I’m supposed to be seeking by voting Republican? They are shameless. They sincerely are. It just goes to show that they are not serious about dealing with immigration. They are not serious about solving our budget crisis. They don’t even care about the security of the world. I would rather see all of the tax cuts expire, then to let them get them for the wealthiest among us. I really would. The party of no, would say no to something they have supported forever. They are so used to saying no, it’s all they know how to do anymore.
If extending the Bush tax cuts would mean passing DREAM, START, and a UI extension, then shouldn’t the Democrats just go ahead and extend the tax cuts?
If they were extended, the GOP still wouldn’t pass DREAM, START, or anything else. So try another one.
Henry,
That was my point. If those bills wouldn’t have passed anyway then it’s senseless to blame the fight over tax cuts for their not passing.
It’s anything but senseless to blame the Republicans for not passing the tax cuts, since it’s Republicans who act like adolescent children having a fit saying that they will block everything unless they get their way on tax cuts. Again, why wont they pass tax cuts for the middle class now? Why not pass something on where they can agree on and they can work out the other taxes later on? Can the Republicans every work a compromise on area’s where they do agree? Or are they forever beholden to the idea of just saying no on everything?
I would think that Republicans if they are interested in tax cuts, they would pass the tax cuts for the middle class now, and work on the riches 2% after they take control. Why wouldnt they pass with what they do agree on? Tax cuts for the middle class? Shouldnt Republicans have to start from there?
I would think that Republicans if they are interested in tax cuts, they would pass the tax cuts for the middle class now, and work on the riches 2% after they take control.
It would be harder to extend the tax cuts for just the top 2%.
But it’s supposed to be a compromise. They take control in the beginning of the year. They could work it out then.
So it’s the democrats that are being unreasonable?
Are republicans ever to blame?
So it’s the democrats that are being unreasonable?
I don’t think either party is being unreasonable. They are both posturing.
Are republicans ever to blame?
The URL says Vox Nova, so no.
The GOP is long noted for giving mere lipservice to morality issues. All now is in pursuit of their fanatic desire to re-obtain power no matter what the cost. That they continue to formulate lies in order to convince the public they are on the side of the American people, is but a tactic. Eight years of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy produced not one job and helped create the disasterous economic fall we are not trying to climb out of.
I could be wrong, but isn’t the reason why the tax-cuts were left on the table in the first place the spinelessness of the then Democratic controlled Senate and House? Sometimes, Minion, I feel as you you believe that Democrats are not complicit in the economic injustice against which you rightly rail. I recognize that a post against the GOP is not a post in favor of the Democratic party–it’s just that I think you sometimes suggest that there *is* a meaningful difference between the two parties. There isn’t.
None of what the GOP does surprises me any more. I have learned to ask “cui bono? [who benefits?]” when observing the behavior of political parties.
Note that I say, “Behavior” and not, “things they make pious noise about.”
The Republican Party is the party of the rich. This is “who benefits”. This is who they serve when they gain power, and this is for whom they oppose the Democrats when they are out of power.
Their actions serve the richest one percent of Americans, and their minions. Everything they do makes sense, when you ask “who benefits?”.
SPOT ON
My father owns a small business. It is him and some guy in New Jersey. The income of the business may sometimes top 250,000 a year. Does my father see that money? No. It costs almost that much to keep the business afloat.
Well, the Democrats voted to raise his taxes today. According to you people he is ‘super rich.’
So lets ask who benefits from this policy.
Not the guy who struggles to support his sick and disabled wife, gets Thanksgiving turkey from the church, wears broken glasses and borrows his daughter’s credit card so he can get them to turn the heat back on.
Democrats are pro-poor? My ass.
Lizzy,
Please draw the distinction between $250,000.00 of revenue and $250,000.00 of profit distributed as income to the business owners. It sounds like your father’s business struggles to generate $250,000.00 of revenue. Against which, the expenses of running the business are deducted.
It sounds like your Dad doesn’t flow $250,000.00 to the bottom line to take home.Consequently, his tax were not raised today.
Dear Minion, your priorities are way out of line.
The Election came down to this: Either vote for the GOP, or for Abortion.
The choice was simple, so of course I chose Life.
What you seem to forget is that all social justice begins in the womb.
Dred Scott declared that human persons with black skin were not actually human persons, but only 3/5 human. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis decided that human persons who were of Jewish heritage were not actually human persons, but some kind of pest or rodent that needed exterminating. Roe v. Wade pronounced that human persons who were in the first nine months of their human development were not human persons unless their mother decided they were.
How can we not have learned our lessons about trying to redefine personhood? How is it that we still have audacity to play God and strip away personhood rights from another group of people, this time simply because of their age?
We know that skin color does not determine the personhood of a human being; they are human no matter what shade their skin is. We know that nationality does not determine the personhood of a human being; they are human not matter where they come from. We should also know that age does not determine the personhood of a human being; they are human from the moment they start living until the day they die.
Some try to claim that a human being does not start living until nine months after his or her development starts, which really does not make any sense at all. From the very second the development of a human being starts, the thing developing is a human being. These human persons cannot suddenly become another species; they remain human beings throughout their development. That development starts the moment the sperm and egg unite and ends when that human person dies. From zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teen, adult to senior, the human being cycles through different stages of his or her life, until natural death.
The fact is these comparisons have to be made in order to show the full scope of the tragedy that took place on January 22, 1973. I would argue that we should be offended if we don’t compare these events and use these historical tools to show the world the truth about the Abortion Holocaust.
It is obvious that we have not yet learned from the unthinkable acts of human destruction in history and the ignorance that led to such devastation. We are obligated to take these lessons and teach people the truth in hopes we can end the plague of child killing that is abortion.
I would go as far as saying, “How dare we not compare the Abortion Holocaust to the American Slave Trade, the Jewish Holocaust or any other catastrophic evil in history?”
For Christ I Stand,
Greg
Greg – May I gently suggest that your faith in the Republican Party as being pro-life in any committed, consistent way, is not borne out by the Republicans’ behavior?
The hard truth is this: Neither major political party is pro-life in anything like a holistic sense. The Republicans often profess opposition to the current permissive abortion laws, but lip service is usually all that is on offer when it comes time to actually stand up for the unborn. There is some action around the periphery (e.g., the Mexico City policy) but nothing resembling an effort to truly root out abortion root and branch.
For their part, the national Democrats have defense of abortion rights as part of their platform and are beholden to NARAL, Emily’s list and other abortion rights advocates. (Worth mentioning, though: the Party is enough of a “big tent” that there are Democrats like Casey, Bart Stupak, Ben Nelson and (somewhat) Harry Reid and others who are for a more restrictive regime. Not to mention, you know: me.)
Ask yourself: if the Republicans in Congress really consider abortion to be the equivalent of genocide, why is it that, when they actually gain power, the things they actually make an effort to get done are all about tax cuts, economic deregulation (both of which hurt workers in different ways) and so forth? The Republicans could have made a lot of progress on abortion by going to the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate and saying: “Look, guys: we’ll brush off the insurance industry pocket lint from our suits and give you single-payer health care, if you’ll throw Emily’s list and NARAL under the bus and work with us on abortion. Deal?”
I can imagine even the late Ted Kennedy being greatly tempted by such an offer.
Lizzy:
Republicans like the “small business” argument. It’s a nice cover for rewarding the super-rich. The truth is somewhat different. I will quote tax policy expert William Gale from Brookings:
“This claim is misleading. If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets — individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.
And just as most small businesses aren’t owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don’t rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn’t the way to go — it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don’t make most of their money off those businesses.”
Gregory is the equivalent of the Abolitionists of the 19the century. For some, they were heroes. I say that they were merciless fanatics who fanned the flames of a needless genocide that DID NOT succeed in bringing racial equality to America. It is so easy for fanatics to overlook the humanity of their opponents and deride and belittle their genuine and sincerely-held beliefs, but that way lies, first, “cultural war” and, later, civil war. Polarized America is descending into civil war.
Actually, Digby, I was thinking the same about MM. His whole post ignores the fact that most republicans seem to think that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to spending by the wealthy, which leads to job growth. His whole post assumes that Republicans are in bad faith when they argue that tax cuts for the wealthy is good for the economy.
Mike: I could say black is white, but it would not be so. The Republicans haev embraced an insidious form of relativism where truth is contingent on compatability with inside-the-bubble-ideology. I’ve heard stuff over the last few years that I never thought I woudl hear beyond the lunatic fringe – the crisis was caused by the poor and minorities, stimulus makes things worse, you can reduce the deficit by cutting unemployment benefits and cutting taxes on the rich…
On this point, the evidence is clear: stimulus is more effective when it comes through spending than through taxes, and the least effective tax cuts are those tilted toward the upper end. What we have here is a major demand-driven downturn. That’s what’s holding back investment, the fact that nobody will buy your stuff, not that your taxes are too high to invest (interest rates are practically zero, for God’s sake, and investment is still flat). There was a time when Republicans were not so awful on economics. But we live in the Limbaugh-Palin era of relativism.
Then perhaps they should be blamed for being illogical. Since the last 10yrs our country has had the tax cuts. The job market is what it is. Where are the jobs created from those tax cuts? It’s a fair question that the democrats are pointing out. I would have to agree with MM. It does seem that Republicans are in bad faith when they argue that tax cuts for the wealthy are good for the economy. If it were true, then where are the jobs? On top of that Republicans are unwilling to extend unemployment benefits for families right before the Christmas holidays. I know that Scott Brown will be seen in a new light up in Massassachusetts for blocking it. Lastly, I would call it unpatriotic what they are doing regarding the START Treaty. The Russians know it, the world knows it, only Republicans seem to fail to understand that. Some get it, but most do not. They are shameless. As for Gregory’s post. The election is over. The Republicans won. So now it’s fair to question their policies. You’re going to see a lot more of it Gregory. Rightfully so. Should Republican policies go unquestioned?
The Republican Party is the party of the rich. This is “who benefits”. This is who they serve when they gain power, and this is for whom they oppose the Democrats when they are out of power.
Their actions serve the richest one percent of Americans, and their minions. Everything they do makes sense, when you ask “who benefits?”.
If this is in fact true, it would seem that the GOP should only be able to attract the votes of roughly 1% of the population, since it would clearly in the interests of the rest of the population to vote otherwise. Indeed, they would probably attract even less, since a number of those in the top 1% are so astoundingly selfless as to be registered Democrats.
However, we find this not to be the case.
From this would seem that either the purpose of the GOP is not in fact merely to benefit the top 1% of the country, or that the population of the country is so appallingly and irredeemably stupid that they pretty much deserve what they get.
My impression is that progressives generally assume the latter, though somehow without feeling that people deserve what they get. I would tend to think that the former makes a lot more sense.
Go with STUPID.
If you don’t belong to a country club, the Republican party doesn’t represent you. Most people don’t understand this. Many are conned by talk about the “people” and Pro-life “chat”. Also the sorry fact that the Dems offer so little to recommend them and so much to discredit them.
It may be true that the Republicans have done no more than the Democrats to end abortion, though that’s debatable at the very least. (Democrats will not even vote for a parental consent bill, for Heaven’s sake!!)
But nevertheless, the very first prerequisite to getting my vote is to say that you oppose the legality of abortion. At least if people say they oppose it, there is some chance they will act accordingly. If they won’t even say it, then it’s guaranteed that they will do nothing about it, and likely will make things worse.
If nothing else, I consider it a “message” vote.
Words are cheap.
Words not followed by deeds is empty nonsense or propaganda.
You can only know anyone by what they DO.
Sean writes, “Words are cheap. Words not followed by deeds is empty nonsense or propaganda. You can only know anyone by what they DO.”
And so, would I be justified in voting for party which says its goal is, say, to exterminate all homeless persons, on the ground that so far they have done nothing to cause the actual extermination of any homeless persons?
If they showed little evidence of actually wanting to commit genocide, it would be reasonable to conclude that they aren’t really for genocide.
So you would have no qualms voting for a party with a “kill all the homeless” platform, until such time as you began to see actual killings taking place?
In any event, thank God no American political party has shown a willingness to actually murder millions of unborn children. That would be scary.
So you would have no qualms voting for a party with a “kill all the homeless” platform, until such time as you began to see actual killings taking place?
If I concluded that they weren’t serious about genocide, I’d probably not vote for them more for tasteless jokery.
In any event, thank God no American political party has shown a willingness to actually murder millions of unborn children. That would be scary.
It would be indeed.
Agellius,
A perfectly respectable opinion to have. Its refreshing to hear “This is why I vote as I do…” rather than the “This is why you must vote….”
If this is in fact true, it would seem that the GOP should only be able to attract the votes of roughly 1% of the population, since it would clearly in the interests of the rest of the population to vote otherwise.
Well, with something like 40% of the wealth of the United States at their disposal, they can afford to hire the very best propagandists to make their case. That pays for a lot of that “pious noise” I mentioned.
That “case” is mostly cultural-populist in content; the origins of the current “pitch” of the Republicans has its origins in the cultural upheaval of the 1960s.
First and foremost: In the wake of Lyndon Johnson’s getting on board with the Civil and Voting Rights Acts and other initiatives, he lamented that he’d “lost the south for a generation” as a consequence (we’re actually at 3 generations and counting). The “Solid South” for the Democrats became the “Southern Strategy” for the Republicans as segregationist Dixiecrats defected to the Republicans in droves.
The Republicans also present themselves as the guardians of the (genuine) virtues of rural and small-town folkways. They get away with it because the idiot Democrats by and large stopped talking to such folks (while the Republicans’ economic policies have been obliterating the economies of those places, but that’s a whole ‘nother thread. I should probably post on that, come to think of it…).
Well, with something like 40% of the wealth of the United States at their disposal, they can afford to hire the very best propagandists to make their case.
So your excuse for the Republicans’ ability to capture a majority of the 99% of the population that is below the highly rich threshold is because of their ability to finance propaganda that dupes these people. It would seem, then, that Darwin’s assumption was correct.
Also, wealthy elites in New York and California tend not be Republican leaners, and it is not as though the Democrats are bereft of rich financiers to support their “propaganda.”
The “Solid South” for the Democrats became the “Southern Strategy” for the Republicans as segregationist Dixiecrats defected to the Republicans in droves.
Actually, no they didn’t. Other than Strom Thurmond, most of the Dixiecrats remained solidly in the D-column or moved on to third parties. Just ask Robert Byrd.
So your excuse for the Republicans’ ability to capture a majority of the 99% of the population that is below the highly rich threshold is because of their ability to finance propaganda that dupes these people. It would seem, then, that Darwin’s assumption was correct.
What “assumption” of Darwin’s would that be? That I believe that, in Darwin’s words, “The population of the country is so appallingly and irredeemably stupid that they pretty much deserve what they get”? That would not be correct, because he’s putting arguments into my mouth that I’m not making, and assigning beliefs to me that I don’t hold.
Also, wealthy elites in New York and California tend not be Republican leaners, and it is not as though the Democrats are bereft of rich financiers to support their “propaganda.”
Right – and they tend not to be economic progressives and New Dealers. I mean, look: It seems to me at times that the political fights in this country are between, or instigated by, rich people: economic royalists on the Republican right and social libertarians on the Democratic “left” duke it out over the legal status of fetuses and gay people, and gee, there’s no time left after discussing those issues to talk about how working people are getting screwed over more and more and more.
The Democrats have been all but useless on economic issues for 30 years; the “kitchen table issues” that Truman focused on are long forgotten. Democrats either passed or were quiescent at the passage of NAFTA, they’ve neglected the Employee Free Choice Act, all but abandoned Progressive taxation of incomes and a million other cuts, and these sins of omission and commission have bled the working class white.
spot on again.
The top 1% has 60% of the wealth [and rising].
A relevant recent speech by Bernie Sanders on this topic:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5OtB298fHY
Thanks, WJ – worth embedding:
Nothing makes liberals angrier than allowing men to keep more of their earnings.
And Morning Minion is nothing if not liberal which is why his go-to sources are places like Brookings.
The reality is that both parties favor the rich and they take care of those who put them in office and men like Soros fund both sides when it comes to elections.
The problems of the poor can only be addressed at the local level but those who are always claiming to love the poor are forever in favor of more govt which axiomatically diminishes the opportunities to help the poor locally.
And these ENDLESS Republicans-Suck Democrats-Don’t arguments never go anywhere.
What sucks is the Fed Govt which sucks-up to Washington money, men, and talent out of the local communities and returns to the local communities the chains of rules and regulation.
But liberals love govt – and BOTH the republicans and Democrats are liberal
Vermont,
Actually, conservatives love government; the right was always supportive of strong monarchies. The liberals wanted to be individuals who didn’t give #$%## about anyone but #1.
Matt writes, “If I concluded that they weren’t serious about genocide, I’d probably not vote for them more for tasteless jokery.”
Good point. From now on I will not vote Democrat for that reason.
Matt writes, “[quoting me] ‘In any event, thank God no American political party has shown a willingness to actually murder millions of unborn children. That would be scary.’ It would be indeed.”
Yes. It would be one thing to joke about the killing of the unborn in your party platform. But if they started taking steps to actually facilitate it, that would definitely drive me away from them.
Agellius – I’m not clear why you’re arguing with me. Where do you believe we disagree?
Am I arguing with you, Matt? You’re the one who jumped in and responded to the comment that I made to Sean. Where I suspect we disagree is that I think a party which promises to protect the right to kill babies, and then proceeds to take steps to facilitate the actual killing of babies, is as bad as one that promises to exterminate homeless people and then takes steps to actually make that happen; and I’m guessing you don’t agree with that. However only you know for sure.
Where I suspect we disagree is that I think a party which promises to protect the right to kill babies, and then proceeds to take steps to facilitate the actual killing of babies, is as bad as one that promises to exterminate homeless people and then takes steps to actually make that happen; and I’m guessing you don’t agree with that.
Actually, we don’t disagree at all, given those (somewhat loaded) examples.
Agellius, I really believe that the leadership of the Republican Party doesn’t actually give a shit about abortion, for the reasons I’ve given; the funny thing is, I also don’t believe that the Democratic leadership really, deeply cares about keeping it legal, either. The whole thing is something to make a show of being self-righteous about, to avoid discussing the ongoing, decades-long economic rape of the lower 2/3rds of the wealth scale, which neither party wants to acknowledge or deal with.
Matt writes, “Actually, we don’t disagree at all, given those (somewhat loaded) examples.”
Then here’s another point we disagree on, since I don’t consider those examples “loaded”, but rather an accurate comparison and description of what has taken place.
Matt writes, “Agellius, I really believe that the leadership of the Republican Party doesn’t actually give a shit about abortion, for the reasons I’ve given; the funny thing is, I also don’t believe that the Democratic leadership really, deeply cares about keeping it legal, either. The whole thing is something to make a show of being self-righteous about, to avoid discussing the ongoing, decades-long economic rape of the lower 2/3rds of the wealth scale, which neither party wants to acknowledge or deal with.”
It may be that the Republicans don’t really care about abortion, and the Democrats don’t either. Both may be saying what they think their constituents want to hear. In which case the real problem is that Democratic voters are in favor of abortion, resulting in Democratic politicians professing to favor it. If that’s the real situation, I certainly don’t want to be among those who are causing Democratic politicians to take that position by voting for them.
It’s as if you’re saying, there are all these issues that are important, where the Democrats get it more right than the Republicans, and these matter more than abortion because the Democrats really will take action on them. Whereas abortion is the one issue that neither party actually does anything about, so you don’t have to take that into consideration when deciding which party to vote for.
But if that’s true, then the question becomes, how do we make one party or the other take action on abortion? The Democrats used to be strongly pro-gun control, but they dropped that position because the majority favoring the right to bear arms grew too large. It seems to me that if all Catholics voted strictly pro-life, then the Democrats would drop the pro-choice plank from their platform, just as they dropped the pro-gun control plank. And if that happened then I could vote Democrat with a clear conscience.
As multiple popes have pointed out, no right means anything without a right to life. A right to food, clothing, healthcare, etc. is worthless if you have no right to live. So that has to be the top issue. The other issues are just going to have to wait until this one is resolved. So abortion is my “no compromise” issue.
I am quite certain that there must be some issue that you would refuse to compromise on. What is it? Slavery? Outlawing of the Mass? Extermination of Jews? Whatever you can name as your no-compromise issue, abortion is mine, and I find it hard to understand any serious Catholic not making it his as well.
Since so few Catholics treat it as a no-compromise issue, the Democrats know they can get Catholic votes without having to sacrifice pro-choice votes. Whereas if all Catholics treated it as a no-compromise issue, the Democrats would have some serious re-thinking to do.
Rather than reply here, I’d like (with your permission, of course) to turn your comment and my response into a new post in the site – not as a way of “calling you out” but because I think you raise important points that are worthy of a thread of their own.
Matt: It’s nice of you to ask my permission, but I figure anything I post on the web is fair game. Post away if you like.
What Agellius and many other American conservatives like him don’t realize is that, right now, life on this planet for many who aren’t still foetuses is becoming quite problematic–and threatened by many other things beside “climate change.” If government has to remain paralyzed until the “right to life” of the unborn is established, then hundreds of thousands–perhaps millions–of living children are going to die under American and Israeli and jihadist bombs. To put those concerns aside in the interest of one singel issue is the argument of a heartless (and probably egoistic) fanatic.
So I should place the potential deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, over the actual deaths of 40 million (and counting at the rate of at least 3,000 a day) unborn babies? I don’t know. There’s something about the math that bothers me…
Look, clearly you don’t believe unborn children count as children, otherwise you would see that millions is more than hundreds of thousands. So our opinions differ in that respect. But will you not even make the effort to try to see it from the other point of view, and give people credit for good intentions? Instead it has to be a shouting match or a contest of insults?