ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Austerity: The GOP's Self Inflicted Wound

Updated on March 19, 2013
Repubilcan Leaders are, Being Mislead and Lie to By The Far Right!
Repubilcan Leaders are, Being Mislead and Lie to By The Far Right!
3 out of 5 Less than stellar Leaders of the GOP
3 out of 5 Less than stellar Leaders of the GOP | Source
The Re-Birth of "Path to Prosperity"
The Re-Birth of "Path to Prosperity" | Source
The Speakers line-up for the Conservative Political Action Committee
The Speakers line-up for the Conservative Political Action Committee
Lost in Space (Policy Making)
Lost in Space (Policy Making) | Source

Failure to Communicate: Some GOP Frontrunners

With several of the potential GOP front-runners for the Party's 2016 Presidential Nomination, set to take a running start for the big White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they've already handicapped themselves right out of the gate. Some are far to moderate for their far right ultra conservative base, while others are inextricably linked to their far right base with its' out of touch message and policies.

Despite losing the White House, not gaining ground in the Senate as well as losing a few seats in the House during the 2012 election cycle. They, members of the GOP are still singing that same old tired song that Americans overwhelmingly voted against. Only this time it's in a different style or tempo, like going from a country & western song to contemporary jazz it just doesn't resonate with average Americans no matter how you carry the tune.

This couldn't be more evident than by their own actions or policies. Whether is Ted Cruz (R-TX) regurgitating Mitt Romney's now infamous 47% comment or the re-birth of Paul Ryan's (R-WI) alleged "Path To Prosperity". Which in and of itself, was proven to be outlandishly wrong by several non partisan sources to be not only not fair or balanced in it's approach towards reducing our National Deficit. Yet here it is again in 2013 trying to balance the budget and reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors, poor and middle class families without an iota of new revenue from the rich and well-to-do.

Still the GOP or shall I say Paul Ryan's budget is contingent upon repealing the Affordable Care Act a.k.a Obama-care, which the highest court in the land has upheld as being constitutional to be law of the country. It seems to me that the imminent threat (proverbial gun) to House Republicans from the Tea Party is what prevents them from acting as once reasonable conservatives of old would do in this situation. Yet the failure of the party to grasp the reality of this whole mess, is that they started this whole downward spiral when a Republican was at the helm of government.

President George W. Bush came into office after President Clinton with a budget surplus and a thriving economy. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, he started what was an unnecessary war with Iraq. As the recent MSNBC documentary "Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War" shows, plus an unpaid for tax cut (a.k.a. Bush Tax Cuts) for the so-called job creators as well as a prescription drug plan. Les't we forget about the war in Afghanistan, he dropped the ball on that front by not finding Osama Bin Laden. The mastermind behind the September 11th terror attack.

So after doing the math two wars lasting over a decade, the unpaid for Bush Tax Cuts, prescription drug plan and the potential financial meltdown of 2008 equals the staggering nation debt. Plus the rise of the misguided re-incarnation of the Boston Tea Party movement and their totally dysfunctional animosity towards President Obama's efforts to right this ship, bring us to this point in time. One would think that Republicans/Tea Party should be eager to help correct their party's misfortunes. But they're content to not take responsibility for our current economic woes, by not admitting that they're part of the reason Washington is broken.

Trying continuously to shift the blame to President Obama's watch is their modus operandi so to speak. But the cold harsh reality is the economy has been steadily improving, albeit not fast enough despite their obstructionist's ways. When and if they would grasp this concept their party's brand/image might be restored to the once sensible status of reasonable Republicans from years gone by the wayside. I'm just saying we'd actually be much better off.

What's really sad is that average hard working Americans are buying into the lie they're being spoon fed by the GOP/Tea Party base, there's an underlying sentiment that we as a country are in this particular predicament as a result of President Obama's Policies. When the truth is that the "Trickle Down Policy" the GOP has been selling or trying to sell doesn't actually work. It does work if you're a part of the elite crowd of millionaires and billionaires. You continue to get richer as the poor and middle class struggle to survive. Here's a news flash if the poor and middle class don't have the money to spend on goods and services, they don't spend the money to make the rich richer.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Excellent analysis!

      And, if I might add to the Bill Maher complaint, that he pays too much in taxes.....

      Hello! What kind of money do you make? I don't know about him, but I will use Chelsea Handler, as I read of her deal: 25 million a year.

      So, if Uncle Sam took 1/2, she'd still have 12 million. 12 million! WHO needs that kind of money? It's insane. And the fact that she makes this much is the problem.

      People work 40 hr weeks, and a second job on top of that, but cant make ends meet.....and why?

      Who decides what the pay is anyway? How come if you run yourself ragged, harm you body and your health....you don't make MORE than a person who entertains?

      Who decides what a job is worth? That is the problem, imo--not the taxes we pay.

      You have no need for that much $$. It's a sham and the fact that it's allowed is the crime! imo.

      Other than that rant, you hit every nail on every head, from my pov.

      Good job!

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 4 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      Great analysis, Salvienation. The trickle down economic policies along with the neanderthal social policies have plunged GOP ratings into the basement. Some GOP leaders are looking to moderate these views but most are still the same. Voters need to examine these policies closely and vote their interests and send these GOP leaders home.

    • Barefootfae profile image

      Barefootfae 4 years ago from Skye

      @LMC

      Who should decide who earns what?

      Are there those who should earn more than others and why?

      If we decide to change things what happens to the assets people already possess?

      What separates that from theft?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Well, who does?

      Who decides Chealsea Handler makes 25 mil, and a nurse makes $65,000?

    • Barefootfae profile image

      Barefootfae 4 years ago from Skye

      LMC:

      You are the one who feels the need to regulate so show me the money.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      I'm asking!!

      IF people make so darn much money: they SHOULD pay high taxes.

      I mean, it's so out-of-touch with most of us.....

      Not paying taxes is really like stealing.

      After all, those professions were GIVEN that high standing in this world.

      Asking someone with 25 mil to pay half is generous. They have it made in the shade.....and it may be working hard, but it's not hard work!

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      Taxes paid by highest incomes

      •The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.

      •The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.

      •The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.

      •The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.

      Taxes paid by lowest incomes

      •The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.

      •The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      And?

      All you have to do is substitute "have" for pay, and "money" for taxes.

      example:

      top 40% have 84.3% of money

      top 20% have 65.3% of money

      bottom 40% have 6.1% of money...etc

      Then you can see the disparity and the crime.

      Bottom has no money: don't you get that?

      Pay them more, you will get more taxes.

    • Barefootfae profile image

      Barefootfae 4 years ago from Skye

      Let's see Bill Maher and Phil Mickelson are paying high taxes, right?

    • NateB11 profile image

      Nathan Bernardo 4 years ago from California, United States of America

      lovemychris, I believe you nailed it.

    • Barefootfae profile image

      Barefootfae 4 years ago from Skye

      Nets:

      That's because you share delusions.

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      @love

      "And?

      All you have to do is substitute "have" for pay, and "money" for taxes.

      example:

      top 40% have 84.3% of money

      top 20% have 65.3% of money

      bottom 40% have 6.1% of money...etc

      Then you can see the disparity and the crime.

      Bottom has no money: don't you get that?

      Pay them more, you will get more taxes."

      Actually lowering tax rates increases employment, pay, and the amount of money people have to spend. That increases tax revenue. Here are a few quotes by a Democrat from Massachusetts that understood taxes:

      “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

      – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

      “Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

      – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

      “In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

      – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

      “It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

      – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

      “Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

      – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

      “A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

      – John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

    • NateB11 profile image

      Nathan Bernardo 4 years ago from California, United States of America

      With the rate of pay I've usually received, not getting taxed as high just meant I could buy more groceries and not have to borrow money from friends or family to pay rent and bills. Now, that's from the real world, no quotes needed. "..a new car, a new home, new conveniences". Well, Kennedy wouldn't know much about the real world, didn't have to worry much about money. That's my non-partisan jab.

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      "With the rate of pay I've usually received, not getting taxed as high just meant I could buy more groceries and not have to borrow money from friends or family to pay rent and bills."

      That means there was more money in circulation and more revenue. You payed taxes when buying groceries. and those you normally borrowed from had more money to spend. You just proved my point.

    • NateB11 profile image

      Nathan Bernardo 4 years ago from California, United States of America

      Barefoot. If you are referring to me when you say Nets, I do have an answer for you. But I'll wait to see if you are referring to me.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      You notice Kennedy said, "In today's economy".

      His economy was light-years different than now.

      We have suffered 30+ years of reverse robin-hood. In Kennedy's day, there were still good jobs at good wages, and the working man was respected...frankly, more than the CEO. My dad had a job: one job, and supported a family nicely.

      I'm no Svengali, but i can pretty much guarentee that Kennedy would never approve of the income disparity we have now, where CEO's make 231 times what the workers make.

      Where the cost of living is at 2013 levels, and the wages are stagnating in the 70's era.

      NEVER in his life did he demonize the poor, the elderly, the sick, the dis-enfranchised.

      If you want to glorify Kennedy: Let's go all the way.

      He wanted out of Vietnam, wanted to end the Fed, and stop the Dimona nuclear plant in Israel.

      I'm no clairvoyant, but I can pretty much guarentee that all those who support trickle down policy also supported Vietnam, the Federal reserve, and are fine and dandy with Israel having nuclear weapons

      Don't pick and chooses Kennedy, like you guys do the Constitution.

      thank you.

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      @love

      "Don't pick and chooses Kennedy, like you guys do the Constitution."

      You just don't get it. The economic principles have not changes at all.

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      @love

      "I'm no clairvoyant, but I can pretty much guarentee that all those who support trickle down policy also supported Vietnam"

      Kennedy supported trickle down economics. He stated so in the quotes I highlighted.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      I'm talking about you R's who love to quote Kennedy as being on your side.

      He really wasn't.

      And, back in his day, trickle down may actually have worked!

      But since 1980 on, it has meant taking from the lower classes to give to the rich, where it stayed put.

      Look at a chart: it's all there in black and white.

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      @love

      I'm not saying Kennedy was a secret Republican. What I'm saying is that he understood taxes and government revenue. All you know about trickle down economics is that it's associated with Reagan and liberals say it is bad. I'm done with this argument. You are a product of your environment and beyond learning at this point.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Gee thanks. I guess I'm too stupid to think for myself. Thanks for dismissing me as if I don't have a brain.

      I have to learn from you?

      You and lady Jack take the cake on smugness, IMO.

      Only one problem, young buck: I lived through it.

      I don't need Kennedy or Reagan or liberals to tell me anything: I have eyes to see!

      Problem with some people is they use intellect to dismiss logic.

      I don't need to "learn" trickle-down theory and how it works.

      I've been to the Master class. I have a PHD....it's called Voodoo Economics, and I give it an F.

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      I'm sorry. That was mean to say. My frustration is that when you give me your idea I consider it and you don't do the opposite. Anyway, I'm no longer going to argue. I'm sorry for being mean.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      That's really ok Carl, and thanks for that. I don't like to be mean either: but I can be. The thing is........

      Why I don't consider your argument is just BECAUSE we have lived it!

      We have seen Republican trickle down, and we have seen Democrats in office too. That should count for knowledge as well as anything else.

      I really believe that R's cannot show me anything I haven't already seen a 100 times over. And what I have seen, I don't like.

      That's just it.

      And I think you, too, have your mind made up.

      Comes a point where strawberry ice cream is just strawberry ice cream.

      No amount of whip cream and choclate sauce is going to make me like it!

    • Salvienation profile image
      Author

      Salvienation 4 years ago

      I thank each and every one that read my article, the purpose was to point out the misconceptions being represented by the GOP.

      @ Carl, I mean you no disrespect but in John F Kennedy's day there was no minimum wage, the cost of a gallon of gas was roughly $.40 , a loaf of bread also was approximately $.30- $.40. A modest 4 bedroom home then was only $18-$20k, because my grandparents bought the house that my mother and her siblings grew up in for $18.5K in 1958 when my mother was 9 years old. So the comparison to then and now are like apples to strawberries!

      To those of you that enjoyed reading my article, I'm glad that you understood the point that I was trying to make about the twisted and dysfunctional re-incarnation of the Boston Tea Party Movement from the far right wing - wingnuts like the Glenn "paranoid/delusional" Becks, Rush "pill popper" Limbaughs and the likes over at FOX NEWS!

      Thank You All

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      "@ Carl, I mean you no disrespect but in John F Kennedy's day there was no minimum wage, the cost of a gallon of gas was roughly $.40 , a loaf of bread also was approximately $.30- $.40. A modest 4 bedroom home then was only $18-$20k, because my grandparents bought the house that my mother and her siblings grew up in for $18.5K in 1958 when my mother was 9 years old. So the comparison to then and now are like apples to strawberries!"

      That's called inflation. Have you looked at what caused it?

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      The average salary was $5100 in 1958. The cost of gas and housing were almost at the exact same ratio as they are today. The increase in the cost of both is the result of the devaluation of the dollar. Instead of asking why the dollar has lost value you say things are different now because of a loss of buying power. What is wrong with you?

    • Salvienation profile image
      Author

      Salvienation 4 years ago

      @Carl

      Seriously, have I looked at what caused it? It being the current economice woes facing the country as we speak. I outlined the root cause of IT and the responsible PARTY for IT, in the above or aforementioned article written by me!

      Again no disrespect to you, but the proof is in the pudding. Pardon the pun, it's already reflecting in recent American History. The downward spiral began as a direct consequence of George W. Bush's administration and or policies, plain and simple!

      Dubya, began his Presidency with a budget surplus from the Clinton White House years, quickly squandering it with not one but two boots on the ground wars lasting over 10 years each. The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 & 2003 for the so-called job creators. Then there's a prescription drug plan that wasn't fully funded and oh yeah, there's the matter of the financial meltdown in 2008. So yes I've looked at what caused IT!!!

      There are many thing I could point to, but I believe that I've answered you question so I'll refrain from going any further.

      Thank You

    • Salvienation profile image
      Author

      Salvienation 4 years ago

      Carl in 1958 my mother was only 9 years old so I don't know what the average salary was then. But I believe that like the Republican "Tea" Party leaders you're missing the point.

    • profile image

      Carl 4 years ago

      @ Sal

      "Carl in 1958 my mother was only 9 years old so I don't know what the average salary was then. But I believe that like the Republican "Tea" Party leaders you're missing the point."

      My mother would have been 12 or 13 in 1958. That isn't the issue. The problem is that your not looking at history or economics. You just "believe" that I'm wrong without any justifiable reason.

    • Salvienation profile image
      Author

      Salvienation 4 years ago

      @carl

      I don't think you're wrong without any justifiable reason, I think that you're wrong because you've failed to grasp the idea that a republican President, G.W. Bush, squandered a budget surplus and a robust US economy. On two wars, an unpaid for prescription drug program, and tax cuts for the so-called job creators.

      As far as life in America during 1958, I can only say it wasn't all that great then either. Eisenhower was President then and gave way to JFK, but we can agree to disagree on this subject.

    Click to Rate This Article