People my age who support equality and social justice are referred to as “hippies”. Politicians who support the top 1% and are ultra-conservative are members of the “Party of No”. I’m not insulted to be called a “hippy”. Why do GOP operatives get defensive when you label them as “Party of No” supporters?
As early as Sep 10, 2012 we chronicled the GOP’s dangerous, obstructionist tendencies in the article “President Obama Has Saved Our Country from a Depression in Spite of the “Party of No”!”
We all know that economists advising our President and President Obama believe that the fiscal stimulus we had then didn’t include enough for “WPAlike” projects that created jobs, but President Obama got what the intransigent “Party of No” would allow to pass.
The article, which is over a year old, states “The truth is that recovery would be almost ridiculously easy to achieve: all we need is to reverse the austerity policies of the past couple of years and temporarily boost spending….Meanwhile, the strong measures that would all go a long way toward lifting us out of this depression should include, among other policies, increased federal aid to state and local governments, which would restore the jobs of many public employees”.
The article “The GOP’s ‘Party of No’ Goal is to Obstruct President Obama’s Progress” was published on August 8 2011.The article states “The most obvious problem is unemployment. The best way, short term, to drive the deficit down is to spur growth and get Americans back to work. Has anyone noticed that Americans with jobs can provide for their families, put money into the economy and, oh yes, pay taxes that increase revenue and thus cut the deficit”?
Why focus on these old articles? President Obama is still trying to get the “Party of No” to cooperate with his efforts to get the 99% jobs-thus restoring our economic stability and providing us with dignity.
Democratic politicians are convinced that the GOP wants to maintain its obstructionist stance. The article “Dems lash out at GOP for ‘pathetic’ election-year agenda”
The article states “Republican leaders, one Democratic missive said, “have an even more pathetic agenda in store for 2014 than in 2013, when they hurt middle-class families by obsessively focusing on repealing the Affordable Care Act and refusing to pass measures that would help create jobs, increase wages and strengthen the middle class.”
Suppose something happened and the GOP decided to help the 99%? It wouldn’t matter because they aren’t even going to show up for work as the article states “The House will be in session for just 11 days in January, 11 in February, 12 in March and 11 more in April.”
The GOP knows they can’t drum up support for these policies. The article “Why is the GOP launching a new anti-poverty campaign?” is by a reliable member of the GOP propaganda system-Byron York, and posits that these proclamations are empty and hypocritical.
He writes “The sparseness of the new Republican anti-poverty agenda has led some critics to charge that it’s just talk, that these Republicans, some of whom are planning to run for president, are discussing poverty to soften their image and re-position the GOP as a more compassionate party.”
If a member of your own crew berates their policies as badly as that what does that say? It says that the GOP doesn’t really care about the ramifications of their policies which support the top 1% solely.
Remember the rancor we exhibited towards Bush 43’s policies which only benefited his “Ranger” and “Pioneer” contributors? It hasn’t changed and the GOP doesn’t really want to acknowledge it.