The end of the Republican party

ProfSteveVO's picture
Tagged:  •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •  

The end of the Republican party

I was not always a one-party man. When I was first able to vote, and extremely proud to have the privilege to do so, I was willing to review all the political candidates to determine which one I felt was most appropriate to what I believed was in the best interest of both myself and my country… not necessarily in that order. Alas, within a few years, as I became more and more informed, I began to see a trend regarding political parties, especially with regards to the consequences of what the parties stood for, and how the long-term implications would begin to affect me.

Within this presidential race the United States is viewing today, It is with heavy heart that I no longer look to my political party of choice and see any difference in beliefs, intent, or rhetoric between my choice of party and the ‘other’ primary party. I can honestly and truly say that the Republican party is officially dead… at least to me!

Regardless of the political battle taking place between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, the competition to those two, has already ‘decided’ that John McCain is the nominee for the Republican party. This in itself is the one and only reason for my comment concerning this party’s demise.

Take a few moments to listen to the beliefs and intents of all three political candidates, and you will be hard pressed to either see or hear any differences; essentially killing off what has become the conservative movement altogether.

Prove to me that those currently running for president are neither ‘elitist’, ‘self-promoting’, ‘power-hungry’ people who cannot describe, let alone understand how America became the super-power it has become. Between the idea that taxing the rich is a good thing because someone has less than them, to the concept of a bonus program to CEO’s, to the idea that taking six years to help a country achieve democratic process is too long. Let’s take a look at some facts shall we…

• Taxing the rich is a good thing (media & presidential candidates) – Review the following IRS information excel spreadsheet will point out that more than 86% of all income tax is paid by the top 25% of current wage earners today… Seems to me they are already supporting the lazy people out there already… why are we punishing the wealthy? ((The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1985 - 2003)). Another argument within this context is the idea that we need to feel threatened by those who actually succeed…. Since when should motivation and achievement be punished?... Keep it up and any motivation to succeed will die with this concept.

• The money paid to CEO’s is too much – Many CEO’s are hired on as leaders within their respective industry. Their duties include the ability to bring the organization to a future point in time. Combined with that goal or vision, is that many of these CEO’s are not paid the amount that most people believe during this process. When stocks and market conditions provide evidence of their ‘supposed’ achievements, then pay is justified. Regardless of what you believe the US economy is doing; good or bad, low unemployment rates and continued increases in consumer spending are signs of a healthy economy

• We need to force the Iraq’s to move faster toward their own decision making ability (political and militarily) – From the signing of the declaration of independence, America’s revolutionary war lasted from 1775 to 1783 (for those of you mathematically challenged… that’s 8 years)

• Too many soldiers have died in the Iraqi war… We need to withdraw now! – When we review the murder rate of the U.S. versus the war in Iraq… we really need to pull out the entire civilian populous of our major cities since there were more DEATHS here that we had in Iraq… In any war that the United States has been a part of, this is perhaps the one that has the least amount of casualties. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html)

Next time you hear the self-proclaimed new sources, OR the political parties tell you that something is wrong with the way something is going, thereby we need to elect so-and-so to correct it… look a little closer to the facts. Next time you wish for a political party to help in your decision… look a little closer at the things they say and determine if what they are saying is actually something good for the country as a whole, or only a select few!

To bring full circle my title to this post… All three candidates (in the democratic and republican parties only) are saying the same thing, and are proposing similar things… increase government because those not in government obviously don’t know what we’re doing, thereby elect me to fix it for you. Wake up everyone… keep growing government the rate we currently do, and any non-political voice won’t matter… Today it does: Elect someone other than a big government lackey… someone outside of the democrat and republican parties!

3
Average: 3 (1 vote)
Miss_Stoic's picture

But I do take issue with your first bulleted point... First, you claim that all people who do not exist in the top 25% economically are lazy. That is terribly ignorant. There are lots of hardworking people out there who aren't CEOs, oil tycoons, high paid politicians, technological gurus, doctors, etc. Why is it that because they aren't rolling in money and lack the capability to light cigars with $100 bills make them lazy? Not everyone can have those jobs for any number of reasons. Second, without these "lazy" individuals doing all the various jobs that support this country you would not be able to function comfortably. How are these "lazy" people expected to feed their families in this already failing economy if the majority of their already small income is going towards the government?

Are you one of those extremely wealthy people? Not necessarily in the top 25%, but do you make more than $60,000 a year? If so, I don't think you have much room to speak on how "lazy" people are who, apparently, are just too stupid to get a higher paying job. Most of the "lazy" people you speak of are NOT threatened by the wealthy and are certainly NOT wanting to end motivation and achievement - they're very motivated in trying to make their lives and their kids' lives better, and they're certainly trying to achieve things in their own life.

In addition, while the majority of larger issues between the candidates may be agreed upon, the smaller issues are just as important. Who supports gay marriage? Who supports a woman's right to choose? What are their stances on healthcare? What will they do about the enviroment? These things are also very important and I can see very distinct dividing lines on these issues between both the Democratic and Republican parties.

ProfSteveVO's picture

Point given and taken.

I would agree that the word "lazy" was too harsh considering my intended argument. It was meant toward those portraying the need to 'tax the rich' versus the implications toward those who are not part of that statistic.
---
http://progressiveu.org/blog/profstevevo

"Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?” (Sun Tzu)

Mr. Warbanks's picture
Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

I basically agree with you. However, astounding murder rates dont really justify a failing war.
Also, you should throw in a stat that shows how much of the total income those top 25% of Americans rake in. If it is under 86%, then your argument is fair.

"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman

"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law

ProfSteveVO's picture

I may be misunderstanding you here, but my inclusion of murder rates within the US is to actually make the point that casualty rates in Iraq are not something more urgent than the crime rate within the US itself.
---
http://progressiveu.org/blog/profstevevo

"Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?” (Sun Tzu)

Mr. Warbanks's picture
Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

you cannot compare apple and oranges though.

The US's murder rate has nothing to do with fighting a senseless war. They are two separate issues that both need answers, but you cannot use one to answer the other.

"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman

"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law

ProfSteveVO's picture

I disagree.

Based on the many speech's made by many of our illustrious leaders, the arguments against this war are overwhelmingly because of the 'senseless deaths' of our soldiers and other military personnel in Iraq. If those arguments are used to create decision making due only on the characteristic of deaths, then I should be able to propose that we get rid of all the police officers in the United States right now... they are obviously not doing their job since murder is still around (and as statistics could show, there are more of those than military casualties in Iraq). It certainly sounds like those trying to get rid of the military in Iraq are claiming they are doing no good anyways, and people keep dying; same as my police proposal... There is a lot of similarities here; whether or not you wish to see them is another matter.

As to whether or not this war is senseless is another debate. Ask a 100 people and I'm guessing you'll get many different answers (arbitrary number... but make certain it includes both Americans and Iraqi...) concluding that this war brought many freedoms to a people and country which haven't had that in many years. Or the widow of a solder... or a mother of a killed soldier... or a returning solder... or other non-governmental organizations working there... etc ... Senseless? Personally I believe that our government is senseless, that doesn't mean I'm voting for it to go away altogether...

---
http://progressiveu.org/blog/profstevevo

"Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?” (Sun Tzu)

Mr. Warbanks's picture
Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

Though you do make a sensable argument, you are forgetting that the police are paid to police our own lands.

The reasons the Bush Administration gave for going into Iraq have already been disproven, and it is not our land to police or protect.

Therefore it only seems right that we leave.

"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman

"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law

ProfSteveVO's picture

Thanks Mr. Warbanks...

I'm certain that neither you or I will ever complete this debate, but... you have certainly provided me with topics of future blog posts... I appreciate the opportunity to both listen to, and comment on your thoughts!

---
http://progressiveu.org/blog/profstevevo

"Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?” (Sun Tzu)

Mr. Warbanks's picture
Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman

"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.