Truth About Repubs is Funny

The following articles from The Onion are funny because they are so close to the truth. Republicans, however, might not find them very amusing.

 – – – 

Embarrassed Republicans Admit They’ve Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time They’ve Been Praising Reagan

WASHINGTON—At a press conference Monday, visibly embarrassed leaders of the Republican National Committee acknowledged that their nonstop, effusive praise of Ronald Reagan has been wholly unintentional, admitting they somehow managed to confuse him with Dwight D. Eisenhower for years.

Eisenhower

The GOP’s humiliating blunder was discovered last weekend by RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who realized his party had been extolling “completely the wrong guy” after he watched the History Channel special Eisenhower: An American Portrait.

“When I heard about Eisenhower’s presidential accomplishments—holding down the national debt, keeping inflation in check, and fighting for balanced budgets—it hit me that we’d clearly gotten their names mixed up at some point,” Priebus told reporters. “I couldn’t believe we’d been associating terms like ‘visionary,’ ‘principled,’ and ‘bold’ with President Reagan. That wasn’t him at all—that was Ike.”

“We deeply regret misattributing such a distinguished and patriotic legacy to Mr. Reagan,” Priebus added. “We really screwed up.”

Following his discovery, Priebus directed RNC staffers to inform top Republicans of the error and explain that it was Eisenhower, not Reagan, who carefully managed the nation’s prosperity, warned citizens of the military-industrial complex’s growing influence, and led the country with a mix of firm resolve and humble compassion.

Not Eisenhower

“Wait, you’re telling me Reagan advocated that trickle-down nonsense that was debunked years ago? That was Reagan?” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said upon hearing of the mistake. “I can’t believe I’ve been calling for a return to Reagan’s America. I feel like an asshole.”

According to sources, millions of younger Republicans have spent most of their lives viewing Reagan a stalwart of conservative principles, and many were “horrified” to learn that the former president illegally sold weapons to Iran, declared amnesty for 2.9 million illegal immigrants, costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee, funneled aid to Islamic militants in Afghanistan, and suffered from severe mental problems.

(click here to continue reading)

 – – – 

Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People

Romney claims he wishes he'd never aided helpless sick people.

BELMONT, MA—Though Mitt Romney is considered to be a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the national spotlight has forced him to repeatedly confront a major skeleton in his political closet: that as governor of Massachusetts he once tried to help poor, uninsured sick people.

Romney, who signed the state’s 2006 health care reform act, has said he “deeply regrets” giving people in poor physical and mental health the opportunity to seek medical attention, admitting that helping very sick people get better remains a dark cloud hovering over his political career, and his biggest obstacle to becoming president of the United States of America.

(click here to continue reading)

Remembering Reagan’s Legacy

I’ve never understood why so many Republicans admire Ronald Reagan. I guess he was likeable in some basic way. In certain ways, he was actually liberal compared to what we hear now from some rightwing pundits, but he certainly was no liberal. He even campaigned on racial fears (“welfare queens” and Willie Horton ads) and by doing so made racial fears a mainstay of Republican politics.

I saw a documentary of his life a few years ago. What I got from it was that Reagan was no genius and he had been played like a puppet by his various advisors. I think Reagan meant well, but he seemed out of touch and his policies have been proven failures.

Still, Republicans go on defending him. I do give credit to the Libertarians in that many of them rightly criticize Reagan’s administration. What is absolutely clear is that Reagan was a social conservative but not a fiscal conservative. George W. Bush was simply the inevitable conclusion of what Reagan started.

Leftofawesome — June 06, 2009 — Part two of me explaining why Reagan was an awful and overrated president.

Ludwig von Mises Institute on Reagan’s big government economics: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.as…

Stop the Drug War on His Drug Policy: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-o…

Noam Chomsky on Reagan: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/7/…

Robert Parry on Reagan: http://www.alternet.org/story/140438/…

Christopher Hitchens on Reagan: http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/

Reagonomics & Tax Cuts for the Rich

Rich and defenders of the rich (who have an unfounded belief that one day they will be rich) love to argue for tax cuts for the rich. Afterall, they earned it. The people working in the factories didn’t earn it. The indigenous who were living on natural resources the rich took away didn’t earn it. The taxpayers (which excludes some of the wealthies US companies that pay no taxes at all) who bail out the rich didn’t earn it.

Who owns most of the wealth? The best way to determine this is to add all wealth and invested wealth. The only factor that should be excluded is the wealth invested in the houses people live in because it can’t easily be translated into tangible wealth and in this market many people lose their homes after investing lots of money into them. So, going by all wealth accept for homes, the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95%.

How do wealthy people get their wealth? Most wealthy people are born into and grow up with wealth. Most wealthy business owners received larged start-up money, inherited a business, or inherited other forms of wealth.

Another way of thinking about wealth is wealth disparity. Ever since Reagonomics, the wealth disparity has increased to the highest in the developed world.

http://counterpunch.org/pollin02222006.html

“At the simplest factual level, it is not accurate that Reagan’s tax policies were responsible for bringing inflation down, from an average rate of 8.2 per cent under Nixon, Ford and Carter, to 4.6 per cent under Reagan. The main force here was the stringent monetary policies imposed by then Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker. Volcker was appointed not by Reagan but by Jimmy Carter in 1979… Volcker did indeed break the back of persistent and rising inflation brought on primarily by the four-fold oil price increases in 1973-4 and again in 1979. But he achieved this at a very high cost… real wagesi.e — . the buying power of your dollars of wages — peaked in 1973, the period of high inflation. Average real wages fell sharply throughout the Reagan presidency. The average figure for those eight years, at $15.72 per hour (in 2005 dollars), was 7.6 per cent below the average hourly wage under Carter of $16.95, and 9.6 below the Nixon/Ford peak of $17.39.

…This decline in real wages, beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating sharply in the 1980s under Reagan, is also a crucial link in understanding why inflation did not rise up as unemployment fell in the 1990s, contrary to expectations of virtually every single economics textbook. The standard theory held that when unemployment gets too low, workers gain in bargaining strength. They then push up wages, and businesses pass along these additional costs in the prices they charge consumers. This means rising inflation. But beginning in the 1990s under Clinton, unemployment fell, to as low as 4.0 per cent in 2000, but inflation stayed low. What happened?

Former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan’s own answer to this question (as reported by Bob Woodward in Maestro, his book-length hagiography of Greenspan) was that U.S. workers had become increasingly “traumatized” in the 1990s, and as such did not feel sufficiently secure to attempt to bargain up wages even at low unemployment. …if one would have to pick the single most important turning point over the past 30 years in the treatment of U.S. workers, I would choose Ronald Reagan’s decision to summarily fire more than 11,000 air traffic controllers who, as members of PATCO, the air traffic controllers’ union, went on strike eight months into Reagan’s presidency, in August 1982. This early attack by Reagan was followed by eight years of relentless hostility to the organized working class.

But Reagan did not attack the organized working class only. More broadly, Reaganomics entailed a dramatic new framework for fiscal policy, the area in which Mr. Roberts was likely to have primarily involved as a Treasury official. Reagan’s fiscal program was fundamentally about tax cuts for the rich, a massive expansion in military spending, sharp reductions in social expenditures, and an acceptance-or better still, an embrace-of large-scale federal government fiscal deficits on these terms. All of this should have a familiar ring to those who have followed the course of economic policy under George W. Bush.

No doubt Mr. Roberts recalls President Reagan’s frequently recounted stories about “welfare queens” driving to pick up government checks in their Cadillacs. It was through repeating stories like this that Reagan was able to build support for an assault on even the minimal welfare state programs that had been operating prior to his taking office. It is no surprise that the individual poverty rate rose from 11.9 per cent under Carter to 14.1 per cent under Reagan. ..large-scale fiscal deficits create persistent pressure for a permanent contraction in social spending by the federal government… Remember the Reaganites, as with the Bush group, apparently experienced few qualms about throwing more money to the military while cutting taxes for the already overprivileged.”

Obama’s Lack of Clarity

Such things as the followings show the clear weakness of Obama.  I think he is being genuine in seeking bipartisanship, but he does it by sacrificing any clear communication of facts and principles.  That said, I prefer Obama’s preference of thoughtfully seeking a middle ground as compared to the superficial and anti-intellectual bluster of recent conservatives (Bush jr, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, etc.). 

However, Obama does come off as very weak when he dismisses the Dalai Lama in order to seek the compliance of the Chinese which is one of the most oppressive governments in the world.  Obama was the first president to refuse to see the Dalai Lama.  I’ll never forget that act of moral weakness.  I’ll give Obama the opportunity to prove himself politically, but from a moral perspective he has shown himself to be just another politician.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,529850,00.html

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.

Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the US economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.

Racism, Conservatism, and Code words

Here is some interesting commentary on the use of racism by conservative politicians.

Krugman says that he doesn’t think most conservative politicians are racist or even care much about the race issue, but they do realize many of their base is racist and/or cares about the race issue.  Because overt racism stopped being acceptable, conservative politicians just started using code words.  I’ve noticed a number of commentaries recently pointing out how Reagan became president by provoking racism.  So, racism is apparently a major reason for how the Republican party held so much power in the last several decades.  Only now is racism as a ploy becoming less effective because the younger generations (that have become an increasing voting force) are the complete opposite of racist and also because whites are losing their majority position.