Posts tagged republicans
10:00 pm - Wed, Jan 18, 2012

Shit Republicans Say About Black People

This is a must-see.

(Source: jezebel.com)

9:05 pm - Sun, Dec 11, 2011
17,563 notes

stfuconservatives:

sugar-flanagan:

Take your pick.

To quote the tag-line from the cinematic opus that was Aliens Vs. Predator

Whoever Wins, We Lose

(Source: davejade)

6:14 am - Tue, Nov 22, 2011
80 notes
In any case, the success of modern Republicanism isn’t all that hard to understand anyway. Rich people like it for obvious reasons. Social conservatives like it for obvious reasons. And the white working class — well, they might not actually like it all that much, but they mostly dislike liberals even more. And this is no surprise. After all, we spend an awful lot of time trying to make them feel guilty. Your hunting trips? It’s a slaughter of innocent animals. Your 15 mpg pickup truck? It’s wrecking the planet. Your sexist jokes? It’s workplace harassment. Your air conditioner? Keep it above 80, pal. That lazy family in the Section 8 housing down the street? Show a little compassion for the less fortunate, will you? There’s good reason for all this stuff, but it’s also understandably irritating. Is it really any wonder that plenty of people are turned off by it? And if there’s a large bloc of irritated registered voters, is it surprising that some political party somewhere is going to take advantage of this irritation by assuring them that heartland values are the real America, racism is a liberal scam, global warming is a myth, and social welfare programs do more harm than good?

Deconstructing the Right-Wing Alternate Reality (via azspot

)

(via azspot)

3:17 pm - Fri, Jul 29, 2011

Patriotism & Tax Evasion

Anyone who claims to love this country but refuses to pay taxes clearly does not understand the nature of love…and laws.

10:21 am - Wed, Jul 27, 2011
73 notes

"(The Tea Party) is so lacking in any aspiration for American greatness, so dominated by the narrowest visions for our country and so ignorant of the fact that it was not tax cuts that made America great but our unique public-private partnerships across the generations. If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission. No American politician was more allergic to debt or taxes than Thomas Jefferson, but he also appreciated the need to have the resources to make the Louisiana Purchase and insisted that on his tombstone it be written that he founded the University of Virginia."

(via inothernews)

4:32 pm - Tue, Jul 26, 2011

The Missing Piece in the Private Finance Analogy

In their dueling speeches on the debt ceiling impasse, both President Obama and Speaker Boehner reached for a very familiar analogy between the government and private actors. President Obama analogized our situation to that of a family that is maxing out on its credit card. Speaker Boehner contrasted the responsible behavior of companies that balance their books with the behavior of governments that do not.

As any competent macro-economist will tell you, the analogies are deeply flawed. Individual families and businesses do not have the capacity to manipulate interest rates and the money supply, but the government does. Individual families and businesses acting in ways that don’t correlate with the behavior of others do not cause contractionary cycles through the paradox of thrift when they save money. But drastic government reductions in spending in a recession can trigger that effect. Etc.

Nonetheless, with polls showing that most Americans don’t really understand the debt ceiling debate, it’s understandable that politicians would try to frame the issue in simple terms. I tend to think that the framing favors the Republican position right off the bat, because it cuts out the unique role that the government can play, but that fight is probably lost already, with very little appetite in DC for more stimulus.

Even accepting the framing, though, there’s an obvious piece missing. Consider the following line from Boehner’s remarks: “if you’re spending more money than you’re taking in, you need to spend less of it.” Well, yes, sometimes, but doesn’t it depend what you’re spending the money on? Suppose you’re spending more money than you’re taking in because you’re unemployed, and you need to spend some of your savings now to eat, pay rent, and look for a job. Wouldn’t you be better off continuing to spend on these necessities, even if to do so you need to borrow some money?

(Source: azspot)

9:39 am - Thu, Jun 23, 2011
149 notes

Lipstick Feminists: New Act Prohibits Minors Traveling for Abortions

feministslut:

downlo:

New Act Prohibits Minors Traveling for Abortions

Teens crossing state lines to get an abortion are the target of a new bill introduced today. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) looks fairly comprehensive and serious so far, though full…

2:12 pm - Fri, Jun 10, 2011
37 notes
Which brings us to the difference between Democrats and Republicans whenever scandal erupts. Republicans present themselves as the party of moral rectitude; Democrats present themselves as the party of modern tolerance. But in fact, congressional Democratic leaders are far less tolerant of corruption in their own ranks than their opponents, whose tacit acceptance of all brands of turpitude is boggling. Consider the matter of David Vitter, the Louisiana senator who has confessed to patronizing prostitutes without losing the financial and political support of his fellow Republicans. Vitter may not be as repellent as Weiner, but paying for prostituted sex is still a crime in most parts of this country. Luckily for him, the Republican bosses on Capitol Hill don’t mind. In The Huffington Post, Paul Blumenthal points out that the same Republicans calling for Weiner to step down have donated many thousands of dollars to ensure that Vitter stayed in the Senate—and so he has.
Joe Conason (via azspot)

(via azspot)

2:22 pm - Thu, Jun 9, 2011
868 notes
stfuconservatives: itsallabitharrypotter: ryking: Infographic: Tax Cuts for Millionaires vs. Nutrition Assistance House Republicans recently proposed $833 million worth of cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC in next year’s budget (FY2012), the equivalent of kicking between 325,000 to 475,000 eligible mothers, infants, and children off of one of the nation’s most cost-effective programs. Ultimately over $650 million in cuts to the program are on the table in the bill that Congress will debate later this month. [Right-wingers] justified the cut on the grounds that tackling our nation’s deficits requires “shared sacrifice.” But the tax cuts they recently fought to extend will give away more money to America’s 300,000 millionaires this week than it will cost to adequately fund this critical nutrition program for all of next year. Not exactly “pro-life” of the GOP to throw women, infants, and children under a bus just to make millionaires and billionaires even wealthier, is it? I want to make posters of this and put it all over the Capital building. Or I would if it wasn’t illegal to fart in the wrong place there. They’re pro-life, unless you’re already born and actually need to eat.
High-Res

stfuconservatives:

itsallabitharrypotter:

ryking:

Infographic: Tax Cuts for Millionaires vs. Nutrition Assistance

House Republicans recently proposed $833 million worth of cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC in next year’s budget (FY2012), the equivalent of kicking between 325,000 to 475,000 eligible mothers, infants, and children off of one of the nation’s most cost-effective programs. Ultimately over $650 million in cuts to the program are on the table in the bill that Congress will debate later this month.

[Right-wingers] justified the cut on the grounds that tackling our nation’s deficits requires “shared sacrifice.” But the tax cuts they recently fought to extend will give away more money to America’s 300,000 millionaires this week than it will cost to adequately fund this critical nutrition program for all of next year.

Not exactly “pro-life” of the GOP to throw women, infants, and children under a bus just to make millionaires and billionaires even wealthier, is it?

I want to make posters of this and put it all over the Capital building. Or I would if it wasn’t illegal to fart in the wrong place there.

They’re pro-life, unless you’re already born and actually need to eat.

(via stfuconservatives)

11:08 am - Mon, Jun 6, 2011
30 notes
Republicans don’t want to do anything about jobs and wages. They’re so intent on unseating Obama they’d like the economy to remain in the dumps through Election Day. They also see the lousy economy as an opportunity to sell Americans their big lie that government spending is the culprit — and jobs will return if spending is cut and government shrinks. Democrats, meanwhile, don’t want to admit the recovery has stalled. They worry such talk will further undermine consumer confidence or spook the bond market. They don’t want to head into the election year sounding downbeat. And they don’t think they have the votes for anything that will have much effect before Election Day anyway.
Robert Reich (via azspot)

(via azspot)

Following
Install Headline