This is an open letter to all elected officials in the U.S. who have signed the Koch brothers' climate obstruction pledge. At least 250 members of the U.S. House and Senate have done so. For a complete list check out Environmental Defense Action Fund website. For those of you who do not know, the Koch brothers are two of the richest people on earth thanks to our dependence on fossil fuels. According to EDAF, the fossil fuel billionaire Kochs "have been spending tens of millions pressuring state and federal officials to sign a pledge to obstruct climate action at every turn".
To elected Officials who have signed the climate action obstruction pledge:
How dare you sign a climate disruption enhancing pledge? At the same time you claim to want to balance the federal budget while approving the give away of billions of tax dollars in subsidies to Big Oil companies. Isn't that a tad hypocritical? Do you, or someone close to you, happen to own oil company stock? You can't honestly claim you have not recieved campaign support from oil companies, can you? When did the difference between patriotism and personal gain originally become blurred in your mind? As an American I am ashamed and dismayed that any apparently intelligent person who is willing to flush this country's environment down Tonado Alley holds a political office. You ought to share that shame and dismay.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Sharing the Wealth
Have you heard about the 14 year old tape of Barrack Obama favoring redistribution of wealth in this country? It was supposed to be an attack add in favor of Romney. What does Romney favor? He says he will create 12 million new jobs if elected president. He also has said that he wants every American to have a good job. By a good job it is reasonable to believe he is speaking about good-paying jobs. And by good-paying jobs one can reason that he means higher than minimum wage jobs. In fact, is it not reasonable to conclude that Romney wants all working Americans to have jobs that would allow them to join the middle class? I'm not a mathematician but it seems to me that the amount of money needed to employ 12 million unemployed workers plus raise the wages of the underemployed/underpaid classes would require at least several billions of dollars. From where does Romney think all those billions are going to come? It can't come from the low or impoverished classes. If Romney keeps his promise to shrink the size of the federal government and the federal budget and not raise taxes, those billions of dollars are not going to come from the government. The middle class is probably not going to be willing to donate the money to create all those jobs. That leaves the wealthiest Americans, the only remaining source of that much wealth in this country. Practically speaking, Romney will have to depend on the wealthiest corporations, banks, and individuals to redistribute a portion of their wealth so that the unemployed and underemployed workers of this country can join the middle class. So it would seem that Romney is, in fact, in favor of redistribution of wealth in this country.
It is hopefully clear that the President of the U.S. does not have a magic wand that can be waved in order to create jobs. If he did, President Obama would have already waved it. Nor does the President have the power to force big banks, corporations, and the wealthiest Americans to cooperate in creating any number of new jobs. If Romney has known a secret formula for doing so, why has he been guarding it like a precious secret rather than sharing his secret for the good of the country?
It is hopefully clear that the President of the U.S. does not have a magic wand that can be waved in order to create jobs. If he did, President Obama would have already waved it. Nor does the President have the power to force big banks, corporations, and the wealthiest Americans to cooperate in creating any number of new jobs. If Romney has known a secret formula for doing so, why has he been guarding it like a precious secret rather than sharing his secret for the good of the country?
Saturday, September 22, 2012
New Insight Part 5
My very own older sister gave me a new fresher answer to the question, "What is a Republican?". Thanks to my sister I now know that, at least some Republicans believe that President Obama is the figure that, after three and a half years in office, has failed to fix the mess that President Bush and the Republicans spent eight years creating. By "mess" they are referring to the economy and the fact that the median income of the middle class has decreased for seven of the last ten years. "Mess" does not refer to the setbacks suffered by the environment, women's rights, social issues, etc. during eight years of Bushdom. This accusation that Obama is responsible for the present financial crisis in America may sound unreasonable to more liberal thinkers. However, there is reasoning behind it which brings into question the appropriate function of government in our lives. The reasoning goes like this. If President Obama had not proposed Health Care Reform it would never have become law. Small business owners would not be anxious about whether they can afford the costs imposed by the new law in regard to their employees without laying employees off. This supposedly prevents them from hiring new people they may have to lay off because of the new Health Care Regulations. In other words, if business people felt confident about the future they would be hiring a lot more unemployed people. And the only reason they don't feel confident is because of Health Care Reform. Therefore, the person who originated Health Care Reform (not the people who made it the law of the land nor the Supreme Court that upheld it) is solely responsible for the current economic crisis. And he refuses to accept responsibility for the country's economic mess.
Business people don't like any kind of government regulations that interfere with their bottom line, i.e. profit. Expenses decrease profits . Anything that increases expenses such as fair wages, pollution controls, safety equipment and safety procedures for workers, decrease profits. If the government had not stepped in after the Industrial Revolution began, sunlight in Pittsburgh would still be a rare sight; mill workers would still be reduced to begging for handouts from their former peers. Pinkerton guards would still be employed to break worker strikes at any cost. Wage earners would be forced to work longer hours without overtime pay. Don't fool yourself. The only reason we have safer working conditions, cleaner air and water, higher wages, is because of government regulations. And despite hundreds of govenment regulations, the rich still have managed to get richer.
This argument about too much regulation of business by government raises the question as to what should the function of government be in regard to business. I don't recall the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution saying anything about the main duty of government being to maximize profits for corporations. I remember something written about our government being of, for, and by the people-not of, for, and by the corporations. There was also something about the individuals right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I think it would be appropriate for the government to protect those rights for all Americans, not just those earning over $250,000. You don't think corporations are trying to take over? Find out what is happening in Michigan. Corporate dictators taking over whole communities including Detroit, according to The Lowdown (see www.hightowerlowdown.com).
Governments need to create frameworks of rules, policies, etc. that serve the good of all citizens. An example of that good is every American having access to minimum necessary health care. Businesses need to figure out how to function within that framework without depending on government handouts. One problem I have with helping particular businesses, is that all taxpayers do not benefit from the services or goods any particular business produces. Besides that the government cannot afford handouts to business.
Businesses have no business trying to influence the framework determined by our elected officials for the good of all. The only motivation businesses have in influencing legislative or executive decisions is pure and simple greed.. If it were up to me, lobbyists representing the interests of for-profit corporations would be out of jobs. Nor would corporations be allowed to contribute to any one's political party nor campaign. Individual voters should determine who governs-not the amount of money a candidate has available. In the meantime, while corporations can still donate large amounts of money to campaigns, the amounts and donors should be disclosed to the public immediately. I would hate to spend money on a product or service that benefits the Republicans.
We have a time-honored tradition in this country of separation of church and state. We need to start another tradition called "Separation of corporations and government".
Business people don't like any kind of government regulations that interfere with their bottom line, i.e. profit. Expenses decrease profits . Anything that increases expenses such as fair wages, pollution controls, safety equipment and safety procedures for workers, decrease profits. If the government had not stepped in after the Industrial Revolution began, sunlight in Pittsburgh would still be a rare sight; mill workers would still be reduced to begging for handouts from their former peers. Pinkerton guards would still be employed to break worker strikes at any cost. Wage earners would be forced to work longer hours without overtime pay. Don't fool yourself. The only reason we have safer working conditions, cleaner air and water, higher wages, is because of government regulations. And despite hundreds of govenment regulations, the rich still have managed to get richer.
This argument about too much regulation of business by government raises the question as to what should the function of government be in regard to business. I don't recall the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution saying anything about the main duty of government being to maximize profits for corporations. I remember something written about our government being of, for, and by the people-not of, for, and by the corporations. There was also something about the individuals right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I think it would be appropriate for the government to protect those rights for all Americans, not just those earning over $250,000. You don't think corporations are trying to take over? Find out what is happening in Michigan. Corporate dictators taking over whole communities including Detroit, according to The Lowdown (see www.hightowerlowdown.com).
Governments need to create frameworks of rules, policies, etc. that serve the good of all citizens. An example of that good is every American having access to minimum necessary health care. Businesses need to figure out how to function within that framework without depending on government handouts. One problem I have with helping particular businesses, is that all taxpayers do not benefit from the services or goods any particular business produces. Besides that the government cannot afford handouts to business.
Businesses have no business trying to influence the framework determined by our elected officials for the good of all. The only motivation businesses have in influencing legislative or executive decisions is pure and simple greed.. If it were up to me, lobbyists representing the interests of for-profit corporations would be out of jobs. Nor would corporations be allowed to contribute to any one's political party nor campaign. Individual voters should determine who governs-not the amount of money a candidate has available. In the meantime, while corporations can still donate large amounts of money to campaigns, the amounts and donors should be disclosed to the public immediately. I would hate to spend money on a product or service that benefits the Republicans.
We have a time-honored tradition in this country of separation of church and state. We need to start another tradition called "Separation of corporations and government".
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
PART 4: Insight into Republican thinking
If you have been following this blog you know I have been trying to understand how an ordinary person would vote Republican. Thanks to the feedback I have been carefully listening to, I may have figured it out. It's not that these people are deluding themselves into thinking they will ever join the upper one percent of Americans who control 90% of the country's wealth, unless they win a mega lottery drawing. Republicans and Democrats have very fundamentally different attitudes and ways of viewing the world.
The simplest way to distinguish Republican voter thinking from Democratic voter thinking is to identify that which concerns them. The Republicans like to make it seem they are concerned about everyone. But they don't think women and homosexuals should have the same rights as the rest of us, us being real men, I guess. What they don't care about is the totality of life on the planet Earth. What does concern them is the economic status of themselves and their families. Democrats tend to care about the whole. Whereas Republicans tend to care for themselves and what is personally theirs. There is a difference between caring about and caring for. Whereas one can care for certain people, animals and or plants that one likes or loves, one can't care about just certain life forms. Caring about life transcends personal relationships. If one is genuinely caring, one cares about those living in poverty as well as polar bears. If one genuinely cares about, one favors solutions that help impoverished humans without endangering polar bears. If one is a Republican, the fate of polar bears as well as those in poverty is not one's top priority.
Republicans believe that if they take care to ensure their own personal financial prosperity, the country as a whole will be fine. When do Republican leaders prosper? When the richest people in the country are getting richer. I suspect there is some sort of trickle down reward system for loyal party members.
Why else are there so many millionaires in Congress? Of course, if your prosperity depends on the financial security of the upper one percent, it is reasonable to do what you can to protect the financial interests of the one percent, i.e. limited taxes, foreign contracts, awarding them government-financed projects, etc. The fact is the legal system, government institutions, the media in this country are all designed to protect, empower and enable the richest to prosper.
Republicans in government care for their wallets and they care for the people who have plenty of wealth. The people who vote for them value personal wealth as well and believe their chances of accumulating more of it are better under Republican leadership. Unfortunately, they they may be correct.
It is unfortunate for the poor and former members of the middle class. Wealth is not infinite. Not in this country nor in the world in general. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" may be interpreted as jest. This is why it is not jest. If a group of people (let's say 100) has a total of $1000 among them. One of those hundred people eventually gains control of $900 of those dollars. Five others gain control of $50 of the remaining $100. That leaves 94 people with a total of $50. If the 94 people have to borrow money from the richest six at high interest rates and have to pay a higher percentage of income tax to the government than the six richest of the group, one can understand how the total wealth available to the 94 would decrease as the wealth of the 6 would increase. That is a microcosm of what has been happening in America. The Democrats may not be able to stop this trend but I am sure that the Republicans aren't even going to seriously try. They will, of course, try to appear to be trying. They are good at that.
The simplest way to distinguish Republican voter thinking from Democratic voter thinking is to identify that which concerns them. The Republicans like to make it seem they are concerned about everyone. But they don't think women and homosexuals should have the same rights as the rest of us, us being real men, I guess. What they don't care about is the totality of life on the planet Earth. What does concern them is the economic status of themselves and their families. Democrats tend to care about the whole. Whereas Republicans tend to care for themselves and what is personally theirs. There is a difference between caring about and caring for. Whereas one can care for certain people, animals and or plants that one likes or loves, one can't care about just certain life forms. Caring about life transcends personal relationships. If one is genuinely caring, one cares about those living in poverty as well as polar bears. If one genuinely cares about, one favors solutions that help impoverished humans without endangering polar bears. If one is a Republican, the fate of polar bears as well as those in poverty is not one's top priority.
Republicans believe that if they take care to ensure their own personal financial prosperity, the country as a whole will be fine. When do Republican leaders prosper? When the richest people in the country are getting richer. I suspect there is some sort of trickle down reward system for loyal party members.
Why else are there so many millionaires in Congress? Of course, if your prosperity depends on the financial security of the upper one percent, it is reasonable to do what you can to protect the financial interests of the one percent, i.e. limited taxes, foreign contracts, awarding them government-financed projects, etc. The fact is the legal system, government institutions, the media in this country are all designed to protect, empower and enable the richest to prosper.
Republicans in government care for their wallets and they care for the people who have plenty of wealth. The people who vote for them value personal wealth as well and believe their chances of accumulating more of it are better under Republican leadership. Unfortunately, they they may be correct.
It is unfortunate for the poor and former members of the middle class. Wealth is not infinite. Not in this country nor in the world in general. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" may be interpreted as jest. This is why it is not jest. If a group of people (let's say 100) has a total of $1000 among them. One of those hundred people eventually gains control of $900 of those dollars. Five others gain control of $50 of the remaining $100. That leaves 94 people with a total of $50. If the 94 people have to borrow money from the richest six at high interest rates and have to pay a higher percentage of income tax to the government than the six richest of the group, one can understand how the total wealth available to the 94 would decrease as the wealth of the 6 would increase. That is a microcosm of what has been happening in America. The Democrats may not be able to stop this trend but I am sure that the Republicans aren't even going to seriously try. They will, of course, try to appear to be trying. They are good at that.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
What is a Republican
Well, I was just reflecting about what it feels like to vote Republican . How would I feel if I knew my vote for Romney was in agreement with members of the KKK and white supremacist groups as well as the following:
-Corporate managers who are sitting on millions of dollars in cash rather than using that money to create jobs for people who need them
-Christian religious bullies and bigots
-People who are racially prejudiced
-Criminal bullies who have not been caught
-Business bullies who mismanage other people's funds, do hostile takeovers, fix prices, engage in insider trading, cause the deterioration of environmental quality in the name of Profit
-Those who discriminate against minorities
-Members of the majority who believe minorities are persecuting them
-Those who believe the almighty dollar is the most valued be-all end-all ultimate meaning of life. That would include most of the 1% of the American population that control 90% of the country's wealth.
Tell me. How will it feel for you?
-Corporate managers who are sitting on millions of dollars in cash rather than using that money to create jobs for people who need them
-Christian religious bullies and bigots
-People who are racially prejudiced
-Criminal bullies who have not been caught
-Business bullies who mismanage other people's funds, do hostile takeovers, fix prices, engage in insider trading, cause the deterioration of environmental quality in the name of Profit
-Those who discriminate against minorities
-Members of the majority who believe minorities are persecuting them
-Those who believe the almighty dollar is the most valued be-all end-all ultimate meaning of life. That would include most of the 1% of the American population that control 90% of the country's wealth.
Tell me. How will it feel for you?
Saturday, August 18, 2012
What is a Republican? Pt 2
Wow! Do I ever feel naive! I have been trying to figure out why anyone who is not financially wealthy would vote Republican. It seems so obvious all of a sudden. Despite Sarah Palen's Bridge to Nowhere; the party's lack of objections to giving big oil companies billions in federal subsidies, more subsidies to timber companies, paying agri-business not to grow crops; Republican congress people's willingness to spend federal dollars to create projects in their own districts, some people still believe that Republicans manage taxpayers' money better than Democrats. In other words, they think they will have to pay lower taxes with Repulicans in charge than they do when Democrats are in power. I wonder who they think is responsible for paying the national debt.
I admit that there is a lot of waste in government that benefits the few and is a burden to taxpayers in general. But is the best solution to that problem to pay as few taxes as possible?
I don't know how one determines what a fair share of taxes is. It does seem to me that people earning more than $250,000 annually should not be obligated to pay a lower percentage of taxes than anyone earning less than that. It does not seem fair that some businesses end up the year owing $0 in taxes. The rest of us tax payers are paying for the roads, water and sewage system maintenance on which these non-tax payers rely.
Of course, that's how many people feel about entitlement programs for the least financially blessed in this country. Why don't they just get jobs so I could pay fewer taxes? Ironically, many people with that attitude are also Bible thumpers. How they justify their unwillingness to care for the less fortunate I don't understand, since the Bible advocates it and they like to think of America as a "Christian" country.
Materialism is not a Christian value. Tithing is a practice approved by the Bible. Selfishness, hoarding, greed are not Biblical values. It does seem that these are alive and well in our "Christian" society.
Republicans say they want to take government out of the equation. Why? It has nothing to do with freedom and the founding fathers. Wanting to reduce the size of government is all about money. If consumers pay less in taxes they will have more to spend on the goods and services that make the rich even richer. And again, if you reduce taxes, who pays for the national debt?
You Republilcans can identify with the "Christian" right until the end of time. But it is Mammon you actually value more than anything else.
I admit that there is a lot of waste in government that benefits the few and is a burden to taxpayers in general. But is the best solution to that problem to pay as few taxes as possible?
I don't know how one determines what a fair share of taxes is. It does seem to me that people earning more than $250,000 annually should not be obligated to pay a lower percentage of taxes than anyone earning less than that. It does not seem fair that some businesses end up the year owing $0 in taxes. The rest of us tax payers are paying for the roads, water and sewage system maintenance on which these non-tax payers rely.
Of course, that's how many people feel about entitlement programs for the least financially blessed in this country. Why don't they just get jobs so I could pay fewer taxes? Ironically, many people with that attitude are also Bible thumpers. How they justify their unwillingness to care for the less fortunate I don't understand, since the Bible advocates it and they like to think of America as a "Christian" country.
Materialism is not a Christian value. Tithing is a practice approved by the Bible. Selfishness, hoarding, greed are not Biblical values. It does seem that these are alive and well in our "Christian" society.
Republicans say they want to take government out of the equation. Why? It has nothing to do with freedom and the founding fathers. Wanting to reduce the size of government is all about money. If consumers pay less in taxes they will have more to spend on the goods and services that make the rich even richer. And again, if you reduce taxes, who pays for the national debt?
You Republilcans can identify with the "Christian" right until the end of time. But it is Mammon you actually value more than anything else.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Where have the Republicans gone?
I admit my confusion. I don't understand why certain people would choose to register/vote Republican. Please explain.
I am not referring to people in the upper income brackets-those making more than $200,000. I know why they are Republicans. No matter how much wealth they have, they want more and they don't care that they are ultimately profiting from the less fortunate. For them, tax breaks for the rich is a good thing. They favor fewer and less strict safety, health and environmental regulations. They are in favor of gifts from the government such as tax breaks for oil companies that continue to register record-breaking profits but not gifts to the poor such as welfare. Why give away money to the less fortunate? They are obviously not part of the few, the blessed, the chosen. Besides, there's no financial gain in giving to the poor.
The rich want the masses to work harder. The more vigorous the lower class labor, the richer the rich become. It's perfectly logical that rich Republicans would prefer a business man in the White House; someone who would reform the welfare system, cut taxes for the rich, privatize social security, and "reform" Medicare; This idea that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will result in job creation is a concept that history has shown to be invalid. We can see by looking back that cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans results in the richest getting richer and the people in lower income brackets getting poorer.
So if you are not one of the privileged rich and are not related to someone rich, what is your reasoning? Are you a dreamer who is waiting for his/her big break which will result in making you filthy rich?
If you're retired perhaps you will hit the lottery big time any day now. If you're retired and dependent on social security and you don't win the lottery, do you really think privatization of social security is in your best interest? How about more Medicare cuts and/or vouchers? Those things may have to happen anyway. If the Republicans get enough power, those things will happen and happen sooner. Perhaps you are just set in your ways and you could care less that rich Republicans think that people who don't work are not important enough to be a concern.
If you are a woman who is not rich and not in relationship with someone rich, please enlighten me. Unless you are a gold digger in search of a sugar daddy. Most of the people who make their fortunes in business as well as most of those who make the laws in this country are men. The guys who are Republican are generally not in favor of protecting women's rights. In fact many of them are trying to deprive you of the financial support you may need to exercise your reproductive rights. They would also like to deprive you of your legally-protected right to choose. Do you realize that the Republican presidential nominee has wealthy backers who would take the country back to a state where women were in a less powerful social/political position? What makes you want to identify with a party like that?
If you are a Republican member and a member of a minority racial or ethnic group and not rich, I would really like to understand you. Maybe you buy the trickle down theory which failed to deliver when used by President Bush. It would fail under Romney as well. Even if they believe in their hearts that this plan will succeed, Presidents don't have the power to force a rich person to risk the money he gains from tax breaks to create a job for you. Living in hope, i.e. denial, may be more comfortable for you than facing reality.
If you are a blue collar worker and a Republican, you probably always have been, as was your father and his father before him. If that's the case you are honoring a family tradition. I can understand that. But it seems to me that the values of the present day Republican party are not the same as those held by the Republican party your ancestors believed in.
If you are a white supremacist, you need not reply. You will vote Republican because there is a black man in the white house and the anger and frustration of your bullying nature would not permit you to do otherwise.
I remember my parents telling me they voted Republican because it was always Democrats that got the nation into wars. In their lifetime that may have been true. I wonder what they would have thought of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both initiated by a Republican President.
Maybe you are a "Christian". You feel that God has a political agenda for the United States to which you and/or your religious leaders are privy. Your love of the Lord dictates that you should vote Republican because more Republicans talk the talk than Democrats. All you care about is doing the bidding of the Lord, conveniently ignoring the fact that the second greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor as thyself. If God' s agenda is for corporations to control our lives; women, minorities, people with disabilities and the retired to to be treated like second-class citizens, I would question the source of what you believe is God's will.
Some of us defend being Republican by pointing out that it is the Republicans who care about the preservation of individual rights and liberty. Whose individual rights and liberties are being preserved by privatizing social security; turning Medicare into a voucher system; taking away women's right to choose; by removing government regulation of businesses which will result in unsafe working conditions and more unnecessary pollution of earth, air, and water? Some Republicans are calling for the abolishment of the EPA which has steadfastly worked to protect our right to clean air and water. Republicans are clearly concerned only with the rights and liberties of the rich and the would be rich.
I really would like to understand-if you aren't rich, what do you think you gain from supporting the Republicans? Please comment.
I am not referring to people in the upper income brackets-those making more than $200,000. I know why they are Republicans. No matter how much wealth they have, they want more and they don't care that they are ultimately profiting from the less fortunate. For them, tax breaks for the rich is a good thing. They favor fewer and less strict safety, health and environmental regulations. They are in favor of gifts from the government such as tax breaks for oil companies that continue to register record-breaking profits but not gifts to the poor such as welfare. Why give away money to the less fortunate? They are obviously not part of the few, the blessed, the chosen. Besides, there's no financial gain in giving to the poor.
The rich want the masses to work harder. The more vigorous the lower class labor, the richer the rich become. It's perfectly logical that rich Republicans would prefer a business man in the White House; someone who would reform the welfare system, cut taxes for the rich, privatize social security, and "reform" Medicare; This idea that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will result in job creation is a concept that history has shown to be invalid. We can see by looking back that cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans results in the richest getting richer and the people in lower income brackets getting poorer.
So if you are not one of the privileged rich and are not related to someone rich, what is your reasoning? Are you a dreamer who is waiting for his/her big break which will result in making you filthy rich?
If you're retired perhaps you will hit the lottery big time any day now. If you're retired and dependent on social security and you don't win the lottery, do you really think privatization of social security is in your best interest? How about more Medicare cuts and/or vouchers? Those things may have to happen anyway. If the Republicans get enough power, those things will happen and happen sooner. Perhaps you are just set in your ways and you could care less that rich Republicans think that people who don't work are not important enough to be a concern.
If you are a woman who is not rich and not in relationship with someone rich, please enlighten me. Unless you are a gold digger in search of a sugar daddy. Most of the people who make their fortunes in business as well as most of those who make the laws in this country are men. The guys who are Republican are generally not in favor of protecting women's rights. In fact many of them are trying to deprive you of the financial support you may need to exercise your reproductive rights. They would also like to deprive you of your legally-protected right to choose. Do you realize that the Republican presidential nominee has wealthy backers who would take the country back to a state where women were in a less powerful social/political position? What makes you want to identify with a party like that?
If you are a Republican member and a member of a minority racial or ethnic group and not rich, I would really like to understand you. Maybe you buy the trickle down theory which failed to deliver when used by President Bush. It would fail under Romney as well. Even if they believe in their hearts that this plan will succeed, Presidents don't have the power to force a rich person to risk the money he gains from tax breaks to create a job for you. Living in hope, i.e. denial, may be more comfortable for you than facing reality.
If you are a blue collar worker and a Republican, you probably always have been, as was your father and his father before him. If that's the case you are honoring a family tradition. I can understand that. But it seems to me that the values of the present day Republican party are not the same as those held by the Republican party your ancestors believed in.
If you are a white supremacist, you need not reply. You will vote Republican because there is a black man in the white house and the anger and frustration of your bullying nature would not permit you to do otherwise.
I remember my parents telling me they voted Republican because it was always Democrats that got the nation into wars. In their lifetime that may have been true. I wonder what they would have thought of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both initiated by a Republican President.
Maybe you are a "Christian". You feel that God has a political agenda for the United States to which you and/or your religious leaders are privy. Your love of the Lord dictates that you should vote Republican because more Republicans talk the talk than Democrats. All you care about is doing the bidding of the Lord, conveniently ignoring the fact that the second greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor as thyself. If God' s agenda is for corporations to control our lives; women, minorities, people with disabilities and the retired to to be treated like second-class citizens, I would question the source of what you believe is God's will.
Some of us defend being Republican by pointing out that it is the Republicans who care about the preservation of individual rights and liberty. Whose individual rights and liberties are being preserved by privatizing social security; turning Medicare into a voucher system; taking away women's right to choose; by removing government regulation of businesses which will result in unsafe working conditions and more unnecessary pollution of earth, air, and water? Some Republicans are calling for the abolishment of the EPA which has steadfastly worked to protect our right to clean air and water. Republicans are clearly concerned only with the rights and liberties of the rich and the would be rich.
I really would like to understand-if you aren't rich, what do you think you gain from supporting the Republicans? Please comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)