November 04, 2005
Screw the Poor and the Environment
Once again the Republican party sends the clear message that unless you are wealthy, you’re not that important to them.
The Senate approved sweeping deficit-reduction legislation last night that would save about $35 billion over the next five years by cutting federal spending on prescription drugs, agriculture supports and student loans, while clamping down on fraud in the Medicaid program.
The measure would also open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, a long-sought goal of the oil industry that took a major step forward after years of political struggle. A bipartisan effort to strip the drilling provision narrowly failed.
" It would raise $2.5 billion through leasing parts of the Alaskan refuge to oil and gas interests."
I can't believe people think the Bush administration is controled by "Big Oil".
"It would shave payments to some farmers by 2.5 percent, while eliminating a major cotton support program and trimming agriculture conservation spending. A proposal to limit payments to rich farmers failed yesterday."
Hey, rich farmers need some of that Republican love too.
"Yesterday's action is part of an effort by congressional Republicans to demonstrate fiscal discipline after widespread complaints of profligate spending on Capitol Hill."
Maybe their wealthy friends could chip in some of the corporate welfare the Republicans have doled out over the past 5 years?
"Republicans in the Senate and House said the cuts were necessary to slow the rate of spending and control a deficit projected to total $314 billion by the end of the fiscal year."
I thought those spend crazy Democrats had a surplus of approximately this amount 5 years ago?
"During a speech yesterday to a Heritage Foundation group, former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) repeatedly apologized for excessive spending by Congress, including recent highway legislation that was loaded with lawmakers' pet projects."
Democrats don't see Delay as a "Stand-up" guy? He is so misunderstood.
"The focus now shifts to the House, where the Budget Committee voted 21 to 16 yesterday to approve a more extensive bill saving nearly $54 billion through 2010 with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, agriculture subsidies and child support enforcement. The House measure would allow states to impose premiums and co-payments on poor Medicaid recipients for the first time."
Now that's what I call compassionate conservatism.
"Among the deepest cuts are those hitting Medicare and Medicaid. "
It's about time someone just came out and said it, the Republicans finally have.... The elderly suck!
The Senate has made changes to the Medicaid/ Medicare bill that would put the burden on the pharmacuetical companies but bush don't like when the wealthy have to tighten their belts.
"Even liberal advocacy groups say the Senate measure largely shields Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, imposing the burden instead on pharmaceutical companies, private insurers and more-affluent Americans."
"Those changes and provisions have prompted a veto threat from the White House, which has strongly objected to the bill's tampering with President Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit."
"Under the House plan, states could raise co-payments for Medicaid recipients below the poverty line from $3 to $5 per doctor's visit or prescription, then keep raising them with the medical inflation rate. For the working poor just above the poverty line, there would be no limit to higher co-payments, although out-of-pocket health costs are not supposed to exceed 5 percent of a family's income. Health policy analysts say that protection may not amount to much as poor families will have difficulty tracking health care expenses that closely."
The pharmacuetical companies don't have to suffer anymore. Thank You Republicans for pulling those poor wretch's from the brink.
"For the first time, poor children and pregnant women -- currently shielded from any out-of-pocket payments -- could be billed for some medications or hospital visits for non-emergency care."
Too damn bad. That's what you get for being poor......Am I right?........Are you with me?
Go GOP!
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A01
Meanwhile, the government spends tens of billions of dollars on a new nuclear submarine program, and additional billons on the F/22 fighter.
Here’s a nugget:
Under Bush, the US government has borrowed more from foreign governments than the previous 42 presidents combined (1.05 trillion by Bush, vs 1.01 trillion by previous).
Posted by: phx8 at November 4, 2005 12:33 PMRight On! Everybody knows that poverty is only the result of wanton stupidity, laziness and immoral behaviour! The poor only get what they deserve. Somebody’s gotta protect the rich from them…
Why can’t somebody give this Bush guy a blowjob so we can impeach him???
yes! At least Bill only screwed one person, Duh-bya is screwing the rest of us.
Posted by: Kathy at November 4, 2005 01:00 PMFolks, I’ve come to think that there is a possibility that Bush could end up being the best thing to happen to Liberals and Progressives in many many years.
Bush and his party and associated cronies have screwed things up on an historical level. If, as it seems now, the American people are waking up from their right-wing induced nightmare, we will be the ones they turn to for policy guidance. Does this mean we should be glad that the shit has hit the fan? Not at all - Americans and innocents abroad dying and suffering is nothing to be taken lightly. But we are entitled to take lemons and make lemonade.
It will be incumbent upon us to keep from our excesses of the 70s which brought on this backlash. If we do this right and stick to our values, reason and the truth, we can usher in an era reminiscent of the New Deal, which we all know led to America’s rise to the top of the world.
Once we’ve fixed the Bush screwups then we must shoot high - America in the 21st century is long past due universal health coverage. We’re long past due a monumental effort to wean from fossil fuels. We’re long past due allowing anyone in America to choose heat over food.
It’s our turn again. Let’s show them how to govern the right way.
Posted by: roger at November 4, 2005 01:52 PMRoger:
That sounds so optimistic, I wish I could believe that would happen.
As a democrat myself, I just don’t trust my party to do the right thing. Over-reaction seems to be the name of the game.
I think as a party we are forgetting what we really stand for, and are therefore unable to convey it adequately. I think our party is just as responsible for the divisiveness in politics today.
It’s going to take some special thought and I haven’t seen anything to make me think it is going to be any different.
Posted by: womanmarine at November 4, 2005 02:10 PMLet’s show them how to govern the right way.
You can’t do that if you are going to complain about the deficit and budget cuts at the same time, as the Democrats do.
Until you are willing propose you’re own cuts to government programs, you will be no better than the Republicans.
No, Traveller, we’re just more serious about paying for the government we enjoy.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2005 02:27 PMWM - Completely agree regarding the Democrats. We need to light a fire under their asses, no doubt. I think divisiveness is a separate issue - I don’t have a problem with divisiveness right now. The far right took over with a bare (and debatable) majority. I think that alone is the source of the divisiveness. The Democrats could have nipped it in the bud by acting like an opposition party.
But, I do see a very bright light at the end of the tunnel.
BTW, traveler - I do have TWO proposed government programs to cut: The Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Done.
Posted by: Roger at November 4, 2005 02:29 PMStephen,
The trouble is, most people don’t enjoy the government and they certainly don’t enjoy paying for it.
Posted by: TheTraveler at November 4, 2005 02:30 PMBTW, traveler - I do have TWO proposed government programs to cut: The Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Done.
That’s nowhere near enough to solve the deficit and it sure as hell won’t solve the debt.
I’ll say it again: It’s not just about opposing republicans and their programs, it’s about offering an alternative.
Posted by: TheTraveler at November 4, 2005 02:33 PMThe only time Democrats have won the presidency lately is when they went with a moderate, southern governor. Maybe you can learn from your own successes. Maybe Mark Warner instead of John Kerry would work out for you. Or if you want to move - north governor Tom Vilsack. On the west you have Bill Richardson. All these guys are acceptable. I would not support them, but I wouldn’t feel the need to oppose them with too much vigour.
The problem for the Dems is that they have abandoned their own principles. Ronald Reagan started out as a Democratic supporter of FDR. He always believe that he remained at that optimistic place, while the Dems moved away from him. John Kennedy’s tax cuts and his stirring rhetoric about freedom would not sell well in Howard Deans party.
The American people have nothing against the kind of government that builds infrastructure, but they do have problems with the micro managing of who gets to use it and how. Most people are also annoyed by dogmatism. The right tends to have some religious dogmatism; the left has its PC.
Most Americans just don’t want to be bothered. Both Democrats and Republicans bother people with regulations, taxes and general interference in people’s lives. Liberals have been perceived as more intrusive than conservative on issues people consider important. This has been reflected in the election returns. I know that liberals disagree. Of course they are wrong on the face of it. That is why they lose elections. When most people start to agree with liberals, they will begin to win more elections. Predictions of winning elections are easy; actually getting the votes is hard. The test is very straightforward.
I look forward to the fight over Alito. Both sides will reveal some of their true positions and we will see who comes out ahead. Give it your best shot and I expect our side will too.
The Traveler:
You are absolutely right about offering alternatives. One of the problems is the vastness of the difference of opinion. The Democratic party does have alternatives, not listened to/acceptable to the Republicans, so they claim there are none.
I am simply appalled at the extremes in both parties.
Here we go again - they wonder why I call them dumbasses.
Oh, you mean the alternatives I wrote above and that, if you unplugged your Rush-filled ears you’d hear from liberals and progressives everywhere? Those alternatives?
Besides, undoing Bush damage is sure as hell a great alternative in and of itself.
Posted by: roger at November 4, 2005 02:38 PMWell, Roger, that kind of rhetoric doesn’t make anyone want to listen.
We ALL need to get away from that.
Thank you Jack for a thought-provoking post. I do wish politicians on both sides would quit grandstanding and do what’s right for the country.
Posted by: womanmarine at November 4, 2005 02:41 PMI respect that WM, as I respect almost everything you’ve written in these forums, but I disagree entirely. We’ve lost for five years because we played nice with people who threw it back in our faces and exploited our good will. This is a fundamental battle for the soul of this country and I plan to fight hard.
Jack, the final paragraph of your post is, finally, something we agree wholeheartedly about. Bring it on.
Posted by: roger at November 4, 2005 02:46 PMIt will be incumbent upon us to keep from our excesses of the 70s which brought on this backlash.
Roger,
Would that it were possible; but the DNC is identical twin to the GOP when it comes to big money and corruption. For every corporation on the right, the left has a union or PAC pulling their strings. So long as the DNC exists, liberals in America haven’t a snowball’s chance… of representing responsible governance. The DNC’s only claim to fame is the party that kicks others in the shins.
Top that with Democrats being the party for kids and party-goers,
PRO-demonstrations, protests, marches, casual sex, more drugs… any excuse for a party;
ANTI-family, anti-christian, anti-anything… rebellion is the DNC rally call.
Remember, our demographics are getting older, not younger.
For any semblence of balance or sanity, the American people will have to go third party.
The DNC will never evolve into a sober, responsible party of self-restraint. Who knows, having already reached the bottom of the barrel, the next candidate pulled from the gutter muck will most likely top our last two combined… perhaps a world-wide foreign relations scandal getting/giving a bj to another world leader’s spouse with the UN flag standing in for the blue dress.) :-/
Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 02:50 PMThere’s a sliver of truth in what you say about the influence of corporate money, but calling the Democrats anti Family or anti Christian is just plain ridiculous.
Posted by: roger at November 4, 2005 02:56 PMRoger,
So long as the DNC cow-tows to special interests like moveon.org and promotes public schools’ subversion of parental rights, i stand by my anti-christian and anti-family labelling of the party.
Geez.
If the DNC takes Jo’s advice, they will pick up MILLIONS of needed votes.
If the DNC “stays the course” and takes Roger’s, they will continue to be failures.
Holy crap, I think I’m siding with good ol Roger on this one.
Hey, kctim, i am promoting third parties.. if the Dems consider giving my veiws any validity it defeats my purpose of reforming government from a corrupt two party to an actual representative multi-party system.
shhh! ;)
Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 03:19 PMThe problem is that many so-called independents are just moderate Republicans alienated by an increasingly radicalized GOP leadership, instead of being truly independent in any substantive sense.
At some point, there’s no more government to give up, if we want to maintain an orderly society where business can function and people can enjoy their freedoms. Trouble is, some people take the cue when government malfunctions to just say “oh, well, it could never work”. Which means they never try to make it work. They just pass the buck to locals who don’t have the funding or the jurisdictional reach to do things properly.
Republicans and independents alike are paralyzed by an ideology that doesn’t permit them to take improvements in government seriously, nor say no to the big business interests that call for the rollback of regulations.
Democrats, who are not exactly the communists portrayed in the conservative media, have a more expansive view of business. We can be in favor of working with business, but we can also fulfill the duties of being the disinterested third party that sets limits and takes actions that may not be popular with them.
They can also, without shame, work on the improvement of government response, and raise the funding of programs as necessary.
Most of all, they do not have so much of a a cultural bias against properly applied rises in taxes. They have, however, inherited a strong dislike for deficit spending, which means we are in the best position to be the fiscally disciplined party.
The lack of party discipline and cohesive party platform is a blessing for the Democrats. Because we have not really stated as a party what we believe, each member is able to select their priorities with more flexibility. The greater flexibility means that Democrats can be pro-life(Harry Reid), pro-gun(Howard Dean), pro-deficit reduction (Bill Clinton), pro-death penalty (Clinton, again), and pro-military(Nancy Pelosi) without alienating their constituents. They can also go in the opposite direction as well, but that’s the beauty of it- not every district is red.
The Democrat’s flexibility will outlast the rigid ideological paralysis that has overcome the Republican party. Independents would be well advised to live up to their names, and consider us viable choices.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2005 04:01 PMHow do you fight the constant brainwashing of
our middle class? The ones who tune in to Rush
and are blind to any thing longer than the soundbite.
Most often payed for by oil or corporate money.
Unless Democrats find a way to deprogram
and educate these sadly misguided peaple.
they will continue to elect corrupt leaders.
Why do you think we lost the last election?
You don’t really think they were doing a good job?
No issue counts unless peaple know its an issue.
The media is failing to grab these
idiots and tell them just
what they lost in Washington today.
No Corperations will advertise with a media
that will open peaples eyes to the fact
corperations run our country.
Corperations ride the back
of the american workers and fund
the very leaders
that keep the workers,the poor
and the old. IN THERE PLACE
Poor and Working until they grow Old.
REPUBLICANS ARE AMERICANS (ENRON CORP).
DEMOCRATS ARE AMERICANS (ONLY HOPE).
the message is not getting out.
So long as the DNC cow-tows to special interests like moveon.org and promotes public schools’ subversion of parental rights, i stand by my anti-christian and anti-family labelling of the party.
jo,
Could you tell me what the “special interests” of moveon.org are?
President Bush’s actions have certainly created sufficient dissent and public outrage to cause people to act their conscience when entering a voting booth.
You don’t get to the sweet part of a nut until you get rid of the bitter protective shell.
The choice seems clear, but is it. Do we want the “other” main party who has been and can be guilty of the same kinds of things or, do we want to send a clear message that we want control back. The best chance of this is to educate ourselves thoroughly regarding ALL qualified candidates which may include a viable third party option.
Posted by: steve smith at November 4, 2005 04:54 PM
The federal Gov. is responsble for national
defense. Since when are the indebted with babtyitting a generation of losers? People that
strive to be succesful should not be “bled” to
support a socialist manifest. To the contrary
they should be thanked and rewarded. If all of
you that are so concerned with social program
destruction of USA, send all your assets to the
your favorite gov program. Put your money where
your mouth is! Then leave the rest alone.
Jake,
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Which political party’s attitude does your post reflect? Or is it only a reflection of your own attitude?
Posted by: phx8 at November 4, 2005 05:14 PM
Jake11,
I would argue that our tax structure is like that of communist Russia.
In that the system is geared to benefit a select few… The Political donor class.
Or I suppose you feel that those who “strive” to be successful (think Paris Hilton), don’t owe anything back.
It is the wealthiest of Americans who receive the most from our country. We have an infrastructure of wealth accumulation. Banks, patents, tax breaks, federally-funded research, roads, you name it. We even use our military to protect commercial interests. We do this because if people succeed, then all of us will benefit. This can only happen if those who benefit the most pay their fare share!
Or, I suppose there is your way, complete indifference to human suffering.
Good article, Andre.
Slightly off topic, but very interesting article on health care I read today:
For Americans, Getting Sick Has Its Price
Survey Says U.S. Patients Pay More, Get Less Than Those in Other Western Nations
phx8, sounds to me like Jake11 may be advocating an Anarchist’s vision for the USA.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 4, 2005 05:48 PMGRANDMA’S A DRUG SMUGGLER: Drug company profiteering has turned bingo-playing grandma into a drug smuggler. Watch an animated cartoon and rap song about grandma and her “bingo posse” at www.TodaysSpecial.org
Unfortunately, many of you suggesting a third party candidate is what got George W. Bush elected appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000. A person may be elected to the office of President for two terms. Guess what… George was only elected once. By law George could run for President in 2008.
My God, then the world would truly come to an end.
My point is, for right now, a third party candidate will only put the Republicans in the white house again. The reason is the Republicans vote along party lines Only. They don’t weigh issues, they believed George Bush the war president would protect them from terrorists (and why not, we had 112 elevated alerts before the 2004 election and prevented mostly democrat areas from voting or having their votes counted - funny though, we haven’t had a single elevated alert since the 2004 election - I guess the Al Quaeda were happy with the result).
Until the Democrats can get back control, undo everything George W has done and put laws in place (or close the loopholes the Republicans have used to get their way, redistrict, appoint unqualified cronies) and put an end to this war we waged, take power away from corporations and give it back to the people, etc… a third party candidate will only confuse the already simple minded Americans that got us into this mess in 2000.
Clinton had the right idea but didn’t go far enough… he should have raised taxes on the top 10% income earners.
Gore also had the right idea… a lock box for Social Security.
I hope the next Democrat in the white house realizes that we need Universal Healthcare.
Posted by: Pat at November 4, 2005 06:57 PMjo:
“i stand by my anti-christian and anti-family labelling of the party.”
Yeah the party of liars, crooks, traitors, warmongerers and torturers, who purchase media people (and sometimes even gay male prostitutes with no journalistic qualifications) for propaganda purposes, is SO much better at representing good Christians and real family values.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 4, 2005 07:21 PMPat,
Bush can not run again. As much as you do not like it he was elected in 2000 so he has run his two terms.
Republican vote along party lines? Many do but just as many Democrats do also and there is little doubt that you do the same thing based on your post. It is the ones who vote for a candidate instead of a party who usually decide the election and they would be just as likely to vote 3rd party for a qualified candidate. If McCain or Clark ran last election that way it would have been an interesting election.
As for simple minded Americans, I can not attact the messenger here but it seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: Mike P at November 4, 2005 08:13 PM
sure “mr.president” screw the poor and disabled of this fine country (fine before you bought office) my husband is not lazy, is not illirate, didn’t even ask this country for a single dime when he came back from beruit. but now after working in the steel industry and being disabled, this “fine” (and i use the term loosely) country is screwing him in everyway possible. i feel sorry for our children that have to clean up your mess “mr. ‘so called president.’” yeah i voted for the other guy and will continue to do so. hey repuklicans cut your salaries in half, you try living on $37.00 (cash) a month and tell me how the hell your doin. when you have to decide to either buy toilet paper or pay your light and gas bills or put gas in your cars. thank you this still is a FREE country, right?!?!
Posted by: helen at November 5, 2005 02:49 AMI decided to check moveon.org’s web site last night.
WHAT A BUNCH OF COMMUNISTIC GARBAGE!
Eh, it was a dem. named Roosevelt that stated
this crooked income tax crap. A temp thing they
said? Ho Ho Ho. Then another guy, his name was
Johnson, I believe, decided to hand out the bucks to the people most likely to vote dem. Now
we have a whole generation of deadbeats. And now
we have prisons full of their spawn. You guys
are so damn smart. How you plan on fixing this
mess? Throw some more money at them? That is not
working now, then, or gonna work in the future.
Any bright ideas? You all seem to know everything
or talk like you do. Only problem, none of you
seem to have lived in the real world before.
Or I suppose you feel that those who “strive†to be successful (think Paris Hilton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Sorros), don’t owe anything back.
Now it’s a list of “leech’s”
Jake11
Prior to the dreaded income tax we financed the country mainly by excise and estate taxes. If we go back to that, hope you don’t mind tariffs, and the end of free trade.
By the by, it was the New Deal, and the following Liberal programs that grew the large middle class. Also, I don’t live in the real world, you got me. I’m really just a figment of your imagination- brilliant.
Ron Brown,
That rant against moveon.org seems a little underwhelming. I’ve check the site too, but i could not find where they advocate the replacement of our Democracy with that of communist rule.. Care to elaborate?
Adrienne,
“Yeah the party of liars, crooks, traitors, warmongerers and torturers, who purchase media people (and sometimes even gay male prostitutes with no journalistic qualifications) for propaganda purposes, is SO much better at representing good Christians and real family values.”
Well said!
Where is jo’s reply?
Why must we speak so criticly of those in power? All humans have their faults, but mustn’t we all be aware that our survival comes first? How can we blame them for succumbing to their natural will to survive?
Posted by: Demosthenes at November 8, 2005 11:17 AM
