John Cornyn (R TX) among others has been complaining that fifty one percent of our country does not pay any taxes According to the Tax Policy Institute it's actually about about forty six percent, but for everyones sake let's just say it is fifty percent. Fox News seems to have had everyone of their on air personalities screaming the talking point. What Fox News does not tell you is that out of the fifty percent, almost half are retired people who do not make enough money to pay taxes. If you have retired parents who are on social security and maybe some savings dividends, would you want them to start paying? They're retired it's time for them to enjoy life, not worry about it. But that's ok because the same Republicans that wan't to tax Social Security want to get rid of it all together anyway. Warren Buffett one of the wealthiest people in the world, this week said the rich need to step up and pay a higher tax rate. To which one idiot on Fox News called him a Socialist. One of the greatest capitolists in history is called a socialist? And that's why I do not take what Fox News says too seriously. Getting back to point, the other half of the fifty percent don't pay taxes because they are poor. They don't make enough to pay income tax, but the ones that work, do pay other taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, Sales Taxes, Gasoline and other user based taxes. The ones that don't work still pay user based taxes. The amount they pay is actually disproportionately higher than many well off people pay. How you ask, someone who makes four hundred grand a year stops paying into Social Security at roughly one hundred, seven thousand dollars a year. With that in mind he roughly pays Social Security on about twenty five percent of his income, where as a person who makes twenty five thousand a year pays Social Security taxes on one hundred percent of his income. I have explained this so even a chimpanzee could understand it.
To fix the problem with our budget shortfall the Democrats want to raise the tax on the four hundred richest Americans another three percent by rolling back the Bush tax cuts, in addition to cutting spending. Republicans are saying no way. Spending cuts only. Republicans say that it would only generate around seven hundred billion over ten years. How out of touch are they? Seven hundred billion is major money. Instead as I said they want everyone to pay their fair share. I am all for it, so let's take someone who earns the national average for a family of four which is around forty thousand a year, find out the total taxes they pay (everything I mentioned above) and that percentage would be applied to everyone making over four hundred thousand a year. This country would be out of debt in no time considering the four hundred richest Americans have over fifty percent of the money and they make well over four hundred thousand a year.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Fox News, The Good and The Bad
First the good. In the Ames Iowa debate Fox News Chris Wallace, along with the rest of the panel, for the questions they asked the candidates. Those were hard questions and that was a conservative panel, as three of them were from a Washington D.C. based conservative newspaper. Thank you. At first I was wondering if I was watching Fox, or was MSNBC putting on this debate. Once again, thank you. Now the bad. Fox News.
All week Fox News has been talking about S+P downgrading our countries credit rating, and that it was Obama's fault. They have all been calling it the Obama downgrade. It has been talked about all week by not just Fox, but by several of the Republican candidates for President. The problem with that though, is S+P has said since the downgrade was given, that the reason they did it is because forces in our government have turned the debt ceiling and the threat of default into political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. How does the right wing interpret that into Obama's downgrade? When did Obama ever say he would use it as a bargaining chip. He was for raising it on its own the way it was always done. He was stupid to not do it during the lame duck Congress, before the Tea Partiers got in. But Fox News kept hammering that it was Obama's downgrade. When the rhetoric started on Fox, the next day, an S+P Senior official gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal, coincidentally owned by the same parent company as Fox News and said "The conclusion was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about raising the debt ceiling". The "Conclusion" was the downgrade, the "Debate" was in Congress, specifically in the Republican Caucus in the House. The debate was with the Tea Party Caucus and the rest of the Republicans. The fact is the Tea Party members of the House wanted the U.S. to default. Skip ahead to the debate Thursday night and you'll see. Michele Bachman, a Tea Party Congresswoman said "We just heard from S+P, when they dropped our credit rating, what they said was we don't have the ability to repay our debt. I was proved right in my position and we should not have raised the debt ceiling". After hearing that, the next day a Senior Director of S+P in an interview with Politico said "Several lawmakers have expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default. That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable. This kind of rhetoric is not common among AAA rated nations". You can't spell it out more clear than that.
S+P downgraded our rating due to the actions of the Tea Party members of the House.
I would say John Boehners days are numbered as Speaker, he has no control over his Caucus. I don't agree with the downgrade as the U.S. has never nor will they ever default. In the days after the downgrade the stock market crashed but U.S. Bonds couldn't be bought fast enough. That shows the world that we are still the safest bet out there.
All week Fox News has been talking about S+P downgrading our countries credit rating, and that it was Obama's fault. They have all been calling it the Obama downgrade. It has been talked about all week by not just Fox, but by several of the Republican candidates for President. The problem with that though, is S+P has said since the downgrade was given, that the reason they did it is because forces in our government have turned the debt ceiling and the threat of default into political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. How does the right wing interpret that into Obama's downgrade? When did Obama ever say he would use it as a bargaining chip. He was for raising it on its own the way it was always done. He was stupid to not do it during the lame duck Congress, before the Tea Partiers got in. But Fox News kept hammering that it was Obama's downgrade. When the rhetoric started on Fox, the next day, an S+P Senior official gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal, coincidentally owned by the same parent company as Fox News and said "The conclusion was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about raising the debt ceiling". The "Conclusion" was the downgrade, the "Debate" was in Congress, specifically in the Republican Caucus in the House. The debate was with the Tea Party Caucus and the rest of the Republicans. The fact is the Tea Party members of the House wanted the U.S. to default. Skip ahead to the debate Thursday night and you'll see. Michele Bachman, a Tea Party Congresswoman said "We just heard from S+P, when they dropped our credit rating, what they said was we don't have the ability to repay our debt. I was proved right in my position and we should not have raised the debt ceiling". After hearing that, the next day a Senior Director of S+P in an interview with Politico said "Several lawmakers have expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default. That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable. This kind of rhetoric is not common among AAA rated nations". You can't spell it out more clear than that.
S+P downgraded our rating due to the actions of the Tea Party members of the House.
I would say John Boehners days are numbered as Speaker, he has no control over his Caucus. I don't agree with the downgrade as the U.S. has never nor will they ever default. In the days after the downgrade the stock market crashed but U.S. Bonds couldn't be bought fast enough. That shows the world that we are still the safest bet out there.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Introducing Rick Perry from Texas
Yes Texas has created more jobs than any other state during the recession under his watch but then again most of those jobs are minimum wage jobs, as Texas has the highest average amount of people making minimum wage in the country. In fact for someone who shuns the federal government, he sure asks a lot from them. His 2010 budget was only balanced because the federal government plugged 97% of his deficit. This was higher than any other state. Instead of blasting Obama he should be thanking him. Let's dig a little deeper, ok with you? Just like all the Tea Partiers in office he is full of shit. He is the typical Tea Party person talking about less government/less regulation/less intrusiveness. His record shows opposite of his rhetoric.
Such as the fact that after Merck donated 5,000 dollars to his campaign. He signed an executive order requiring 12 year old girls to get the vaccination Gardasil, which is made by Merck. To top that off his abstinence only sex education laws have resulted in Texas having the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. He actually has an immigration policy more liberal that Obama's as he signed an executive order giving "In State Tuition Rates" to illegal aliens. As liberal as some people call me, even I don't agree with that.
But the real scary thing is what he did last weekend. He initiated a religious gathering called "The Response". He tried to fill a stadium in Houston while religious fanatic's got up and spoke to anyone who showed up. Some of the ministers are so far out there that one of the endorsers of the event called The Statue of Liberty a "Demonic Idol right there in the heart of New York Harbor".
Below is a sample of Rick Perry's work ethic:
As the state faces a budget hole of $18 billion, Part-Time Perry continues to charge Texas taxpayers over $9,000 a month in rent and $428.57 an hour for work.
Perry's extravagant rental mansion is worth $1.85 million, 10 times more than the average price for a home in Texas, which is $183,800.
"Texas taxpayers are stuck with the bills for Rick Perry's fancy mansion, his Food & Wine magazine and his one and a half chefs, while Perry charges $428.57 an hour for work," Bill White said. "He's been a career politician for so long he's forgotten who he serves. Texans deserve a governor who's working for them, not himself, and a governor who works as hard as they do."
State schedules released last week showed Perry averages just seven hours of work per week.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average work week for Texans is 40 hours.
The question now is this. To you righteous patriotic Republicans would you vote for someone running for President of the United States who accepts money from a minister who calls one of our countries greatest symbols of freedom a demonic idol? If you answer yes then you'll also be voting for a man who a little over two years ago threatened to have Texas succeed from the United States. Now there is a man all of us can trust.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Taxes and Job Creation
I need for someone to explain to me how less taxes equals more job creation. I don't want the Fox News talking points, I want the facts.
Joe Walsh my wonderful congressman who preaches fiscal responsibility, and moral wholesomeness is looking more and more like just another in a long line of used car salesman sent to Washington. For someone who blames the people who have defaulted on their mortgages it seems really backward that he has had his own house foreclosed on. The story doesn't end there as his campaign staff is suing him for over $20,000.00 owed to them.
The icing on the cake is the alleged $117,000.00 Joe Walsh is behind in child support payments. He claims its much less. So let's say it's in fact much less, say around 35 thousand dollars. That is the amount he loaned his campaign for his house seat. The moral person that he says he is should have paid what is owed to his own children. What I can't figure out is that he is against abortion yet he helps create kids and then decides he is going to let them fend for themselves. I guess that's the personal responsibility he preaches about in Washington.
Joe Walsh is for not raising taxes on the wealthiest two percent in the country and he calls them as most Republicans do, job killing tax increases. Let's take one example. Hedge fund manager John Paulson had an income of 4.9 BILLION dollars last year. I think that's great. As a matter of fact, that same amount at a salary of almost 27 thousand a year would employ 184,000 people.
Now I'm no fool, but the people that make $27,000 a year are putting every penny they earn back into the economy just to get by. Where as Mr. Paulson can not possibly spend that amount of money reasonably. So you come back and tell me that someone making $27,000.00 a year with two kids pay no taxes at all and Mr. Paulson pays a ton of money in taxes. At face value that is true. When you look closer though, Mr. Paulson, if his salary is structured the way most people in the top two percent of income earners pays around 17.2%. He pays very little if any into Social Security, because after you reach $107,000.00 in income you don't pay Social Security on anything made above that amount. Same with Medicare. On the other hand the person making around $27,000.00 with two kids pays no federal income tax, but still pays their share of Social Security and Medicare.
This is the problem. My congressman wants to eliminate those two programs as we know them. What I want to know is if Mr. Paulsons taxes were raised just three percent, he would still have 3.8 billion left to create jobs. I also want to know if the theory that less taxes equals more jobs, then why have the tax cuts that have been in place for the last ten years left us with a 9.2 percent unemployment and a huge national debt? On the other hand when Clinton and Gingrich compromised in 1994 on a tax hike of three percent while cutting most welfare programs, our country had a surplus of over 230 million a year and unemployment at around five percent by the time they left office.
I am not someone who wants taxes raised just to spend more. I want the tax hike used to pay down the bills our congress has accumulated over the years and the tax increase must be tied to that. Why should the money I have paid into Social Security since I was 16 be used to pay down the debt. That money I will need for retirement where as Mr. Paulson will have no worries about his financial health when he retires. Once again can anyone show me some facts that lower taxes equal more jobs.
Joe Walsh my wonderful congressman who preaches fiscal responsibility, and moral wholesomeness is looking more and more like just another in a long line of used car salesman sent to Washington. For someone who blames the people who have defaulted on their mortgages it seems really backward that he has had his own house foreclosed on. The story doesn't end there as his campaign staff is suing him for over $20,000.00 owed to them.
The icing on the cake is the alleged $117,000.00 Joe Walsh is behind in child support payments. He claims its much less. So let's say it's in fact much less, say around 35 thousand dollars. That is the amount he loaned his campaign for his house seat. The moral person that he says he is should have paid what is owed to his own children. What I can't figure out is that he is against abortion yet he helps create kids and then decides he is going to let them fend for themselves. I guess that's the personal responsibility he preaches about in Washington.
Joe Walsh is for not raising taxes on the wealthiest two percent in the country and he calls them as most Republicans do, job killing tax increases. Let's take one example. Hedge fund manager John Paulson had an income of 4.9 BILLION dollars last year. I think that's great. As a matter of fact, that same amount at a salary of almost 27 thousand a year would employ 184,000 people.
Now I'm no fool, but the people that make $27,000 a year are putting every penny they earn back into the economy just to get by. Where as Mr. Paulson can not possibly spend that amount of money reasonably. So you come back and tell me that someone making $27,000.00 a year with two kids pay no taxes at all and Mr. Paulson pays a ton of money in taxes. At face value that is true. When you look closer though, Mr. Paulson, if his salary is structured the way most people in the top two percent of income earners pays around 17.2%. He pays very little if any into Social Security, because after you reach $107,000.00 in income you don't pay Social Security on anything made above that amount. Same with Medicare. On the other hand the person making around $27,000.00 with two kids pays no federal income tax, but still pays their share of Social Security and Medicare.
This is the problem. My congressman wants to eliminate those two programs as we know them. What I want to know is if Mr. Paulsons taxes were raised just three percent, he would still have 3.8 billion left to create jobs. I also want to know if the theory that less taxes equals more jobs, then why have the tax cuts that have been in place for the last ten years left us with a 9.2 percent unemployment and a huge national debt? On the other hand when Clinton and Gingrich compromised in 1994 on a tax hike of three percent while cutting most welfare programs, our country had a surplus of over 230 million a year and unemployment at around five percent by the time they left office.
I am not someone who wants taxes raised just to spend more. I want the tax hike used to pay down the bills our congress has accumulated over the years and the tax increase must be tied to that. Why should the money I have paid into Social Security since I was 16 be used to pay down the debt. That money I will need for retirement where as Mr. Paulson will have no worries about his financial health when he retires. Once again can anyone show me some facts that lower taxes equal more jobs.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The Debt Ceiling
Ok, so I have not wrote in the blog for a while and things are starting to get interesting. Just like any business or household the government needs to borrow money to keep operating. Other than our mortgage, my wife and I have no debt. Yes, we still charge items on our credit card, but at the end of the month it is paid off. It took several years to pay off our cars as we did not have the capitol to purchase them outright. Our government does this also, but most politicians have followed the Dick Cheney school of thought that deficits don't matter. With that in mind they have driven up the debt to numbers that most of us can not even comprehend. So let's start with the facts:
In 1994 a Republican Congress worked out a deal with a Democratic President to cut most welfare programs, while at the same time raising taxes on the wealthiest two percent of income earners in this country. By 2000 when said President left office, the country had a surplus of 230 billion dollars a year and rising, and that was after making payments to pay down the national debt. If things stayed the same our national debt would almost be completely gone. These are the facts and are not disputable. That information came from the new Republican Presidents Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'neill. What happened since then?
To get a stalled economy going the new President devised a plan to take the surpluses and borrow some money to give tax breaks to everyone, but the largest share going to the top two percent of income earners. Then 9-11 hit and we got into two wars, and many minor conflicts that cost billions. By June 2008 the wars cost was up to 850 billion, plus another 750 billion in veterans costs and other indirect costs such as setting up the T.S.A. and the Department of Homeland Security. Other programs such as Medicare Part D will cost around 730 billion by the year 2018. Ok so we have a spending spree by the government during the Bush years that both Democrats and Republicans supported. The problem is that the tax cuts have left us with the lowest tax rates in sixty years while spending was at its highest in our nations history. How did we pay for all of it? We borrowed to pay for it all. Total tab during the Bush years was over 4 trillion borrowed. So here we are today.
In order to keep the country operating we need to borrow more. I don't like it at all, but we have no choice. The only way to fix the problem is to cut spending across the board while at the same time raising taxes. The Republicans say raising taxes stops job growth, but history proves otherwise. The Clinton administration raised taxes three percent on the wealthiest Americans and we had a net gain of 22 million jobs. Bush cut taxes, Obama cut them even more and we had a net gain of 1 million jobs under Bush, and Obama is sitting on 9.2 percent unemployment. Bush in fact had the slowest job growth of any President since the Great Depression.
One question I have is that why did 130 current Republican Congressman vote to raise the debt ceiling 7 times under Bush yet they wont do it under Obama. What's worse is that almost every single current Republican voted for the Paul Ryan budget which required raising the debt ceiling more than 6 trillion dollars over the next ten years? Almost every economist including economists employed by Republican Think Tanks agree that it must be raised. Even the beloved Ronald Reagan had to raise it 18 times during his 8 years in office. In September 1987 Reagan said that if it is not raised "It would threaten the holders of government bonds, those who rely on Social Security, and Veterans Benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets and the federal deficit would soar".
So why are these Republicans who in the past quote Ronald Reagan, who they worship, and voted to raise the debt ceiling under Bush, are now refusing to even compromise? Michele Bachmann who voted to raise it numerous times while Bush was President is a leading candidate for the Republican Presidential race has said that she will not raise the debt ceiling, period. She also has stated that the worse the economy is, the more likely she will get Obama out of office and her chances of getting elected would be higher. The Republicans in 2010 ran on getting more people back to work, yet there has not been a single jobs bill introduced in the House yet.
History shows that when the public prospers the incumbents get re-elected, so there is no reason for the Republican controlled House to introduce anything that would create jobs and help the economy. There you have it, that is what this is all about. It's about making things so bad that Obama will be a one term President. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the day after the 2010 midterm elections that the number one goal is to get Obama out of office. So they are going to sink the economy even worse than it is, just to get Obama out of office? How patriotic is that? One other thing, both Democrats and Republicans have to stop calling Social Security an entitlement program. I have put money into it since I was 15 years old. It is a savings account for when I retire and you the government has borrowed from it since the 1980s. If you want to reform it, give me back everything I have put into it with interest and I will do just fine when I retire. Also, the Republicans tell us as Americans that we are responsible for saving for our own retirements, well what is going to happen to my wifes 401K when these assholes send the nation over the cliff and default on our debt? I'll tell you, her 401K that she has put money into for 20 years will be worth less then the paper her statement is printed on!
In 1994 a Republican Congress worked out a deal with a Democratic President to cut most welfare programs, while at the same time raising taxes on the wealthiest two percent of income earners in this country. By 2000 when said President left office, the country had a surplus of 230 billion dollars a year and rising, and that was after making payments to pay down the national debt. If things stayed the same our national debt would almost be completely gone. These are the facts and are not disputable. That information came from the new Republican Presidents Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'neill. What happened since then?
To get a stalled economy going the new President devised a plan to take the surpluses and borrow some money to give tax breaks to everyone, but the largest share going to the top two percent of income earners. Then 9-11 hit and we got into two wars, and many minor conflicts that cost billions. By June 2008 the wars cost was up to 850 billion, plus another 750 billion in veterans costs and other indirect costs such as setting up the T.S.A. and the Department of Homeland Security. Other programs such as Medicare Part D will cost around 730 billion by the year 2018. Ok so we have a spending spree by the government during the Bush years that both Democrats and Republicans supported. The problem is that the tax cuts have left us with the lowest tax rates in sixty years while spending was at its highest in our nations history. How did we pay for all of it? We borrowed to pay for it all. Total tab during the Bush years was over 4 trillion borrowed. So here we are today.
In order to keep the country operating we need to borrow more. I don't like it at all, but we have no choice. The only way to fix the problem is to cut spending across the board while at the same time raising taxes. The Republicans say raising taxes stops job growth, but history proves otherwise. The Clinton administration raised taxes three percent on the wealthiest Americans and we had a net gain of 22 million jobs. Bush cut taxes, Obama cut them even more and we had a net gain of 1 million jobs under Bush, and Obama is sitting on 9.2 percent unemployment. Bush in fact had the slowest job growth of any President since the Great Depression.
One question I have is that why did 130 current Republican Congressman vote to raise the debt ceiling 7 times under Bush yet they wont do it under Obama. What's worse is that almost every single current Republican voted for the Paul Ryan budget which required raising the debt ceiling more than 6 trillion dollars over the next ten years? Almost every economist including economists employed by Republican Think Tanks agree that it must be raised. Even the beloved Ronald Reagan had to raise it 18 times during his 8 years in office. In September 1987 Reagan said that if it is not raised "It would threaten the holders of government bonds, those who rely on Social Security, and Veterans Benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets and the federal deficit would soar".
So why are these Republicans who in the past quote Ronald Reagan, who they worship, and voted to raise the debt ceiling under Bush, are now refusing to even compromise? Michele Bachmann who voted to raise it numerous times while Bush was President is a leading candidate for the Republican Presidential race has said that she will not raise the debt ceiling, period. She also has stated that the worse the economy is, the more likely she will get Obama out of office and her chances of getting elected would be higher. The Republicans in 2010 ran on getting more people back to work, yet there has not been a single jobs bill introduced in the House yet.
History shows that when the public prospers the incumbents get re-elected, so there is no reason for the Republican controlled House to introduce anything that would create jobs and help the economy. There you have it, that is what this is all about. It's about making things so bad that Obama will be a one term President. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the day after the 2010 midterm elections that the number one goal is to get Obama out of office. So they are going to sink the economy even worse than it is, just to get Obama out of office? How patriotic is that? One other thing, both Democrats and Republicans have to stop calling Social Security an entitlement program. I have put money into it since I was 15 years old. It is a savings account for when I retire and you the government has borrowed from it since the 1980s. If you want to reform it, give me back everything I have put into it with interest and I will do just fine when I retire. Also, the Republicans tell us as Americans that we are responsible for saving for our own retirements, well what is going to happen to my wifes 401K when these assholes send the nation over the cliff and default on our debt? I'll tell you, her 401K that she has put money into for 20 years will be worth less then the paper her statement is printed on!
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The Decline of the Tea Party
So yesterday was the official tax day this year. Usually on April 15th, the day taxes are due the tea Party over the last few years have held rallies across the United States. This year the difference is in the declining numbers of their members showing up at the rallies. Is the Tea Party movement dead or is it that the sane members have seen just how insane some of their Tea Party leaders are. Can you say Bachmann? Or is it they are starting to see that it wasn't a grass roots movement at all, but a heavily funded by big business distraction to the real problems this country faces.
Let's look at the numbers who showed up. In Orange county less than fifty people, in Chicago it was several hundred. In Concord New Hampshire four Republican Presidential hopefuls were headlining that gathering including Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum and the crowd estimate was around three hundred people. In Columbia South Carolina, a heavy Republican state, their new Governor Nikki Hailey along with Michele Bachmann were the headliners and had a showing of around three hundred people. Significant because the tax day Tea Party gathering there two years ago drew around three thousand people. So what has happened that their members have lost interest?
One thing I can say is that Wisconsin Governor Walker has energized the Democratic base the way I have never seen. In fact when I marched up in Madison in early March the crowd was estimated at just over a hundred thousand. As someone who was there I would say that figure is pretty close to reality. Speaking of Madison, it had one of the largest turnouts for a Tea Party rally yesterday. Most likely because their headliner was Sarah Palin. The crowd was estimated at around six thousand people. The catch to that was that many people had signs against Palin and the Tea Party. In fact the local ABC affiliate said a solid core of Tea Party people were flanked on all sides by counter protesters. The other interesting thing was who paid for Palin to be there.
I have said all along that the Tea Party was not a grass roots movement but heavily funded by big business including the Koch brothers. If you look at the picture you see Palin speaking from a podium that has a banner "I am AFP". AFP is short for Americans for Prosperity and their Chairman is David Koch. AFP does not disclose how much money individual doners give them but a conservative estimate is that the Koch brothers have given over twenty million dollars to AFP and its predecessor Citizens for a Sound Economy. Through loopholes in campaign finance laws it is estimated that the Koch brothers funneled almost five million dollars into Scott Walkers campaign.
Two things I wonder about are why would average Americans with everyday problems relate themselves to one of the richest families in the world (Koch). While these guys are flying around in their private jets they are conning average Americans into believing we should all be working more hours for less money and benefits so the Governor can give tax breaks back to them (The Kochs). And finally why is it that the Republicans in congress are so afraid of their base (Tea Party) no matter how small it gets, yet the Democrats in congress loath their base, no matter how big it gets?
Let's look at the numbers who showed up. In Orange county less than fifty people, in Chicago it was several hundred. In Concord New Hampshire four Republican Presidential hopefuls were headlining that gathering including Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum and the crowd estimate was around three hundred people. In Columbia South Carolina, a heavy Republican state, their new Governor Nikki Hailey along with Michele Bachmann were the headliners and had a showing of around three hundred people. Significant because the tax day Tea Party gathering there two years ago drew around three thousand people. So what has happened that their members have lost interest?
One thing I can say is that Wisconsin Governor Walker has energized the Democratic base the way I have never seen. In fact when I marched up in Madison in early March the crowd was estimated at just over a hundred thousand. As someone who was there I would say that figure is pretty close to reality. Speaking of Madison, it had one of the largest turnouts for a Tea Party rally yesterday. Most likely because their headliner was Sarah Palin. The crowd was estimated at around six thousand people. The catch to that was that many people had signs against Palin and the Tea Party. In fact the local ABC affiliate said a solid core of Tea Party people were flanked on all sides by counter protesters. The other interesting thing was who paid for Palin to be there.
I have said all along that the Tea Party was not a grass roots movement but heavily funded by big business including the Koch brothers. If you look at the picture you see Palin speaking from a podium that has a banner "I am AFP". AFP is short for Americans for Prosperity and their Chairman is David Koch. AFP does not disclose how much money individual doners give them but a conservative estimate is that the Koch brothers have given over twenty million dollars to AFP and its predecessor Citizens for a Sound Economy. Through loopholes in campaign finance laws it is estimated that the Koch brothers funneled almost five million dollars into Scott Walkers campaign.
Two things I wonder about are why would average Americans with everyday problems relate themselves to one of the richest families in the world (Koch). While these guys are flying around in their private jets they are conning average Americans into believing we should all be working more hours for less money and benefits so the Governor can give tax breaks back to them (The Kochs). And finally why is it that the Republicans in congress are so afraid of their base (Tea Party) no matter how small it gets, yet the Democrats in congress loath their base, no matter how big it gets?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
W.T.F.
So the tea baggers who got elected on a smaller government, less spending platform, are some of the most hypocritical bunch of assholes I have ever came across. By the way they are the ones who want to shut down government by not funding it. They are trying to blame it on the Democrats in the house but they are holding Speaker Boehner hostage.
In Fact the Tea baggers have told Speaker Boehner that unless they get 242 Republican votes for a budget, that they would shut government down. In other words if Speaker Boehner brought the current budget with all the cuts he originally asked for to the floor he would have enough Democratic votes to pass it. But he will not as he must hold his Republicans together. Tell me again who doesn't have the balls to be a leader.
If government shuts down will congress still get their paychecks? Yep. Will you get your income tax refund? Nope. Will people get their unemployment? Nope. You see, all non essential government services will be shut down. Right now the economy is starting to rebound, and if the economy is good come election time, Obama is a shoe in for re-election.
A government shutdown will snag the flow of money that fuels the economy and if the economy is bad, it's goodbye Obama. That is the goal of the Teabaggers. All of these Republican Senators or Congressman have flat out said they want to shut down government. Mike Lee Utah, Louie Gohmert TX, Mike Kelly PA, Tom Price GA, and from my own Illinois 8th District, Joe Walsh. He goes so far as to say this country needs some shock therapy. Which by the way is the subject covered in Naomi Kleins excellent book "The Shock Doctrine" which talks about how shock therapy has destroyed many countries around the world. Anyways if you don't believe me go to YouTube and look up "Caught on tape, Republicans that support a government shutdown"
The only thing they desire is for Obama to be voted out of office. That is playing politics with peoples lives. Every single member of Congress is a millionaire, it's no wonder that they do not represent "We the People". As for the more government side of things let's look at some of the more crazy bills they have tried to pass that add government not decrease it.
Last week GA State Congressman Bobby Franklin introduced a bill requiring mothers who miscarry to prove that the miscarriage was natural. How much more intrusive can government get. How is it extreme groups like the Michigan Militia who would like total freedom from government not denounce this? Because they're on the same side.
Also included in the Republicans budget cuts is an amendment stopping Washington D.C. from using local, not federal tax dollars funding abortions for low income women. I thought the Teabaggers were all about minimal federal government and letting state and local governments run things the way they want.
By the way if the Republicans are so against government intervention on all levels, who are they to tell a woman what she can or can't do with their body? And don't give me that shit line "The fetus does not have a say" and that's who they're fighting for, because does a four or five year old have a say when his parents bring them across the border illegally into this country? No the Republicans treat them like shit and want them back where they came from.
In Fact the Tea baggers have told Speaker Boehner that unless they get 242 Republican votes for a budget, that they would shut government down. In other words if Speaker Boehner brought the current budget with all the cuts he originally asked for to the floor he would have enough Democratic votes to pass it. But he will not as he must hold his Republicans together. Tell me again who doesn't have the balls to be a leader.
If government shuts down will congress still get their paychecks? Yep. Will you get your income tax refund? Nope. Will people get their unemployment? Nope. You see, all non essential government services will be shut down. Right now the economy is starting to rebound, and if the economy is good come election time, Obama is a shoe in for re-election.
A government shutdown will snag the flow of money that fuels the economy and if the economy is bad, it's goodbye Obama. That is the goal of the Teabaggers. All of these Republican Senators or Congressman have flat out said they want to shut down government. Mike Lee Utah, Louie Gohmert TX, Mike Kelly PA, Tom Price GA, and from my own Illinois 8th District, Joe Walsh. He goes so far as to say this country needs some shock therapy. Which by the way is the subject covered in Naomi Kleins excellent book "The Shock Doctrine" which talks about how shock therapy has destroyed many countries around the world. Anyways if you don't believe me go to YouTube and look up "Caught on tape, Republicans that support a government shutdown"
The only thing they desire is for Obama to be voted out of office. That is playing politics with peoples lives. Every single member of Congress is a millionaire, it's no wonder that they do not represent "We the People". As for the more government side of things let's look at some of the more crazy bills they have tried to pass that add government not decrease it.
Last week GA State Congressman Bobby Franklin introduced a bill requiring mothers who miscarry to prove that the miscarriage was natural. How much more intrusive can government get. How is it extreme groups like the Michigan Militia who would like total freedom from government not denounce this? Because they're on the same side.
Also included in the Republicans budget cuts is an amendment stopping Washington D.C. from using local, not federal tax dollars funding abortions for low income women. I thought the Teabaggers were all about minimal federal government and letting state and local governments run things the way they want.
By the way if the Republicans are so against government intervention on all levels, who are they to tell a woman what she can or can't do with their body? And don't give me that shit line "The fetus does not have a say" and that's who they're fighting for, because does a four or five year old have a say when his parents bring them across the border illegally into this country? No the Republicans treat them like shit and want them back where they came from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
