The Republican Worldview

Filed in National by on November 19, 2012

The basic Romney/Limbaugh/Sher Valenzuela, worldview involves using government to give things to their wealthy friends who “deserve” free money and access to no bid contracts.

That’s why they naturally think that President Obama’s job is to give money to his “friends.” Obama’s friends, of course, are low-life moochers who don’t “deserve” government largess.

“Gifts” to rich people are not gifts, but the natural order of things. Atrios made this observation, and it really makes sense.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Cassandra M says:

    This is the core of the Reagan Doctrine – taking the thumb off of the scale for middle class people and redirecting that to rich people and businesses.

  2. Jason330 says:

    I agree. The whole “smaller government” effort is hogwash and always has been.

    Smaller government for who? Not for Sher Valenzuela. She’ll take all the government she can get.

  3. fightingbluehen says:

    Both sides reward their people when they win. That’s why winning is the only goal for career politicians and bureaucrats. If the Republicans all of a sudden just said screw it let’s go full moonbat liberal on these guys, the Democrats would still find a way to paint them in a bad light. It has nothing to do with issues unless the issues lead to a victory.
    It’s all about the money.

  4. puck says:

    Republicans turned the economy into a zero-sum game where the rich can only get richer not by growth, but by changing the rules so the middle class gets a smaller piece of the pie. That actually worked rather well during the 2000s, but the golden goose is half-dead. Now the middle class isn’t strong enough to spark a consumer-led recovery, and even their pensions have been raided. So Republicans are trying to strip and steal the funding for even more vulnerable populations – Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security.

  5. jason330 says:

    What a doofus.

    You’d have to be an idiot to think that there is some kind of parity between the kind of outright payoffs the GOP throws out when they win, compared to the peanuts that go to the social safety net when Democrats win.

    Especially when you recall that guys like Coons, Carney and Carper consider “not cutting as much” to be Dem win.

  6. puck says:

    Republican policies create new armies of people who need the safety net, then when the safety net necessarily expands Republicans call it “exponential growth of government.”

    Safety net payments are relief payments, not evidence of a massive increase in the size of government. In fact Obama would have been better off if the stimulus had been split into sections designated “stimulus” and “relief”

  7. puck says:

    Conveniently illustrating the Republican worldview, Walmart moves up its January dividend to December to beat the tax cut expiration. The Bush tax cuts reducing dividends from 39% to 15% was one of the Republicans’ biggest giveaways to their friends.

    The shift by the world’s largest retailer will give shareholders, including the family of founder Sam Walton, roughly $1.34 billion in total dividend payments taxed at the current rate.

    Meanwhile Walmart is dealing with low-paid employees planning strikes and picketing on Black Friday.

  8. fightingbluehen says:

    Yeah you,re right. Unions and green energy got nothing…..lol

  9. Jason330 says:

    Doofus.

  10. Jason330 says:

    Puck, That’s a gift of $321 million to the Walmart shareholders this year alone.

  11. puck says:

    One of the laid-off Hostess workers has put some really articulate diaries on dKos, and was quoted in the news a few times.

    Quotes:

    Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers’ union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company’s first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

    and:

    “The point is the jobs they’re offering us aren’t worth saving,” he said Friday. “It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn’t be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that’s a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages.”

    and

    In July of 2011 we received a letter from the company. It said that the $3+ per hour that we as a Union contribute to the pension was going to be ‘borrowed’ by the company until they could be profitable again. Then they would pay it all back.

    Hostess’s final offer:

    What was this last/best/final offer? You’d never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go…
    1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
    2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
    3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
    4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
    5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don’t have it now then you never will.

    Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in 5 years if I took their offer.

    and his conclusion:

    It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.

  12. Rustydils says:

    It is very simple, you should consume less than you produce. When you consume more than you produce it is NOT up to the government to make up for your mistake

  13. Rustydils says:

    Jason do you really want to challenge me to see which list is bigger, the government money romney arrainged to be given to his friends or obama. The problem with you guys create a false pretense, then you build in valid arguments based on that false pretense. Jason, lets make a list

  14. Liberal Elite says:

    @Rd “Jason do you really want to challenge me to see which list is bigger”

    Well, aside from your horrible use of English, your fundamental point is quite wrong… not even close.

    Corporate pork and welfare is FAR FAR greater than personal welfare, including food stamps.
    Look at the whole farm subsidies program… That’s huge, and it all goes to the wealthy. How about that oil depletion allowance. Not too many poor people claiming that tax break. On an on… gifts go to the wealthy, and it really adds up.

    Follow the money… The wealthy still have the political clout to keep the money flowing, even after losing the presidential election in such a glorious manner (wasting $$$billions).

  15. socialistic ben says:

    I dont disagree with you, Rusty. I would just phrase it “More people’s lives will be improved under another Obama administration, then would have been under Romney”.
    At least it’s nice to see someone is still carrying torch for Mitt. He is losing friends faster than a failed presidential nominee who’s party never really liked him in the first place.

  16. Roland D. Lebay says:

    @LE-

    “Corporate pork and welfare is FAR FAR greater than personal welfare, including food stamps.”

    I agree. However…

    You act as if Democrats, including Obama, don’t hand out corporate welfare. They do. I recall then Senator Joe Biden campaigning in Sussex & bragging about the R.E.A. The Rural Electrification Administration. We needed the R.E.A. in the 1940s. We didn’t need them in the ’90s, but good ole Joe promised to keep the subsidies flowing to the chicken farms.

  17. Davy says:

    Public choice theory, anyone?

    That said, a large government promotes this conduct. Sadly, both Republicans and Democrats have increased the size of the federal government.

  18. Rustydils says:

    How does anything Romney has said point to him wanting the government to give money to his wealthy friends. That is not his view. You cannot point to one statement he has ever made in his entire life that backs up your claim. You are wrong. And do not say because he does not want to raise taxes on the rich, because first of all he did not want to raise taxes on anyone, so that is not showing preference to the wealthy

  19. Jason330 says:

    Okay Dils old boy. This election wasn’t referendum on tax policy. Feel better?

Switch to our mobile site