Skip to main content

View Diary: How the GOP stole America (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem is entirely us. (9+ / 0-)

    The people. We vote for these policies and for the people who implement them. We watch Fox News and allow big-spending industrialists and televangelists to inform our decisions.

    While we progressives bemoan the current state of affairs, we can't deny the truth. Which is that people who vote GOP are numerous and that they truly believe in their worldview as much as we do. They vote for people who talk about Jesus more than our candidates do, and they have exactly the same right to vote as we do. We are a divided country. When the GOP presidential candidates talk about giving the country back to "the people", it's no more disingenuous than when we say we need to return the country to the 99%. The truth is that about 40% of the people in the country are firmly on each side, and want nothing to do with what the other side has to offer.

    •  Yes indeed, what's the old truism (5+ / 0-)

      something like "in a democracy, people get exactly the government they deserve" ?

      The USA is a prime example of that, not really anything more or less.

      •  The Republicans claim our country (0+ / 0-)

        has been "hijacked" by Barack Obama and his cabal of socialists. We claim the country has been hijacked by the 1%. Yet neither claim rings true. We are still a country that runs pretty clean elections, and the people continue to vote both for Republicans and Democrats in almost equal numbers, guaranteeing that the gridlock will continue.

        •  Sure, the elections are pretty clean (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          why wouldn't they be when both parties more or less have the same goals?

          To me, the most meaningful distinction between the two is that when your job is outsourced, the Dems talk about giving you 99 weeks of unemployment benefits whereas the Repubs chafe at giving you 6 months . . .

          In other words, the 1% has so much hijacked the country as figured out memes that resonate nicely  and gone on it's merry way with the acquiescence of most people.

          •  The government does not outsource our (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            yet another liberal

            jobs. There are human beings on the other side of the planet that due to advances in information technology and communications can now compete for our jobs. All the government can (and does) do is affect the pace of these global changes. The reason a Chinese or Indian person is taking your job is not because some rich guys decided it would be a good idea; it is because those people (yes, they are people, just like us) want a better life (just like us) and have found ways of competing head-to-head with us.

            The pain the American worker feels is real, partly because these changes are occurring so rapidly. But the pain is also inevitable.

            •  The government sets up conditions (4+ / 0-)

              that makes it attractive for jobs to be outsourced

              For example, if worker representation in corporate decisions was the law of the land, like in Germany, there'd be considerably less outsourcing.

              Similarly, the tax breaks given for income earned offshore ensures that outsources of jobs is a lucrative proposition.

              It's not like they're not willing - and absolutely bipartisan -accomplishes in the plight of the American worker

              •  Yes, the government affects the trend on (0+ / 0-)

                the margins. But the global forces at play are what they are.

                •  You speak as though "global forces" (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dear occupant, Saint Jimmy, Matt Z

                  is something like the gravity from the moon that causes the tides - yeah, what can be done about that?

                  In reality, the economic "global forces" that have been pummeling the American worker for decades have come about in large part BECAUSE OF US Government actions, that were closely linked with the wishes of US Corporations.

                  For example, just why did Nixon go to China, and "open" that country?  In the forty years since then, who has been the largest beneficiaries and the biggest losers?   (hint, US Corporations and US Workers, respectively).

                  But thanks for marginalizing Germany!!  Despite their success, I totally agree that the German-bots on this site get a tad obnoxious from time to time . . . .

        •  The interesting thing about gridlock... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          ... is that it at least aids in having debate, but looks horrible for the politics. I learned recently that Jefferson thought there should be a 12-month wait on passage of bills. If everyone thought that a certain bill should be pushed through faster, then there needed to be a 2/3 majority vote in the legislatures.

          That sort of thing would sure be nice now that we have politicians offering up bills that have 1,000s of pages in them, and no time to read them.

    •  Our political system often doesn't give us choices (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Who could we have elected to stop endless wars?

      Who would have supported a return to a sensibly regulated economy?

      We do have something of a choice on the relative progressiveness of taxation, but even then, the choice that the two parties give us is relatively slight.

      Tunis...Cairo...Tripoli...Wall Street

      by GreenSooner on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 07:24:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Al Gore would never have gone (7+ / 0-)

        into Iraq. That was 100% a neocon war. This claim that the two parties are one and the same just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. All you are really saying is that neither Party is as liberal as we here are. Which makes sense though, as that is not where the entirety of the country is. If Americans consistently voted in Democrats, we'd have much higher taxes on the rich, better social welfare programs, a smaller defense budget, and fewer (though not zero) wars.

        •  I never claimed that the two parties are the same. (0+ / 0-)

          They aren't.

          But the range of difference between them is very limited.

          Iraq was not a "100% Neocon War."  A majority of Senate Democrats--as well as then-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and a sizable minority of House Democrats--supported the War on Iraq in the fall of 2002.  Many "serious" centrists and pseudo-liberals, from John Kerry and Hillary Clinton to the Brookings Institution, backed the idea of invading Iraq.  

          It's certainly true that Al Gore and Barack Obama opposed the war and they deserve credit for having done so.

          But neither supported nor supports fundamentally scaling down the role of the US military in the world.

          And, no, all I'm saying is not that neither party is as liberal as we are here. Over 60% of the American public oppose the War in Afghanistan. Neither major party does.

          Tunis...Cairo...Tripoli...Wall Street

          by GreenSooner on Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 08:30:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Split that in quarters, take one quarter.. (0+ / 0-)

      ..and for that many it could be true:

      Which is that people who vote GOP are numerous and that they truly believe in their worldview as much as we do.
      How many republican "conservatives" use SS, medicare, medicaid, and many more "socialist" taxpayer supported services?

      Then again, make that less than a quarter of teapublicans where it is true.
      More like 5% - belief does not = truth or fact.

      There are probably as many whose beliefs match their behavior as there are Ron Paul supporters; a very small percetage of the entire US population.

      Ignorance via propaganda is the distortion that keeps the GOP in business imo

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site