This is an election year. There are hundreds of Congressional seats “up for grabs”. All Humanitarians and Latinos MUST VOTE this year. We cannot allow the Republicans to obtain a majority in the House or the Senate! Imagine the carnage if they win the majority!When I think about the Republican Agenda, it is mind boggling to me how anyone could be Republican.Their agenda is so duplicitous:
1. Economy: They say they support an improved economy, yet they favor tax cuts for the rich. They favor de-regulation for big business. Under their last administration, they came in with the biggest surplus and, due to their programs, left with the largest deficit.
2. Christian Values: They say they support Christian Values, yet they support an agenda of HATE
3. American People: They say they are for the American People, yet they are against so-called “entitlement programs.” They want to end social security and medicare. In order to do so, their first plan is to raise the retirement age to 70.
4. Jobs for Americans: They say they are for American Jobs, yet they want to reduce jobs and cut pay for teachers, police and firefighters.
5. Immigration: They say they support legal immigration and it is not about being “anti-latino”, yet they support anti latino racial profiling bills like sb1070, they support a border fence ONLY on the Mexico border, they support a racial profiling sheriff (arpaio), his volunteer masked goons, his suppression sweeps, they support future immigration levels being reduced, but only from Latino or Minority countries, they support Official English only, they support Mass Deportation and approve of racial profiling of latinos; they call citizen latino children “anchor babies” and delivering babies – “dropping them”; etc. etc.
6. Constitution: They say they believe in and abide by the Constitution, yet this is only when it is convenient for them to do so. They advocate changing the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, and want to end birthright citizenship; They support racial profiling which is against the law.
7. Pro-Life/ANTI Womens' Choice: They say they are Pro-Life and want to end a woman’s right to choose, however they support the Death Penalty, they advocate wars (e.g. Iraq – no WMD), they advocate assault weapons. They also advocate using torture on prisoners, violating the Geneva Convention.
8. Pro-Marriage/ANTI Gay Marriage: They say they are Pro-Marriage between a man and a woman, and they rally against Gay Marriage, yet they have the highest rate of members who engage in illicit affairs with male pages, interns, prostitutes and strangers. (eg: larry craig; mark foley, ed schrock; Charlie crist, jim mccrery, david dreier, etc )
9. Intelligent President: They claim they support intelligent candidates for the Presidency, yet they nominated Sarah Palin for VP.
Posts
11 comments:
AZ,
I don't agree. People, like me, have paid into social security all of our lives. Send me a check for all I've put in then you can disband it. Otherwise, it is a promise broken. It is only the Republicans that are wanting to rescind it, not Democrats. Why is it the Republicans feel ok giving the extremely unwarranted tax cuts, but for those of us who paid into a benefit (that is what it is, a benefit) we should receive it.
There is also a way to fix jobs in our country. Cut back outsourcing offshore by 50% and we will have jobs here - galore! Those companies that do this can have their tax cuts. People would be working, paying taxes and it would pay for itself. But no. Republicans just want to keep giving tax cuts and deregulation to the rich and big business and continue to take and take and take away from the middle and lower income families. They are wrong but apparently you and most republicans choose to look the other way. Sad!
AZ,
Re-read my post. Everything I said about republicans is 100% true.
The democrats have a long record of supporting the middle and lower income families. They have been fighting an uphill battle against the republicans who have been the party of No with one exception. Suddenly they voted yes for the Mexico border security bill so they can fill the pockets of their rich cronies and contributors. You can bet companies like Xe (formerly Blackwater) and Halliburton and other security big businesses will reap the reward from the $600Million border security bill just passed. Funny how they FORGOT about the budget when it's time for their cronies to get paid.
Your blog contains good info. thanks, keep posting.
There are so many lies and misrepresentations in your post that one hardly knows where to begin. I know you will not permit me to respond point by point but this tirade against the Republican Party is exactly the kind of thing you opposed in the case of the DUI death described elsewere on you blog. Don't judge the group by the crimes of the individual, if there are any. And don't get carried away your rhetoric just because you disagree with the GOP's political philosopy.
As far as Social Security is concerned I would be interested in your solution. I see that you are opposed to private accounts for the younger contributors but want you money out of the system, which is basically the same thing. In other words a private account would enable you to do exactly that.
Assuming for the moment that we need to have a solution that goes beyond your narrow selfish interest and that private accounts, either yours or anyone else's if instituted retroactively to you and others like you, it would bankrupt the system, the same criticism the democrat party of "no" has for the private acccounts proposed by Bush, just for young or new workers. I think there are a lot more of the former like Dee than the latter. Notice that it is a question of whose ox is being gored.
Let's get real. There are only three ways to save Social Security: increase revenues, reduce expense, or some combination of both. Unlike Arizonian, I say go whole hog and remove the cap on taxable income over 5 years but freeze the maximum benefit at the current level as adjusted annually for inflation. Why isn't the democrat congress talking about this in the same way they propose to raise income taxes on rich by letting the Bush cuts expire? They have missed their opportunity as they always do when it comes to taking responsibility for the proper funding of government programs.
Reducing expense will be controversial although it has been done before when they raised the full benefit retirement age to 67. Seventy, therefore would be nothing new. However, I believe there must be some provision for those who while otherwise healthy are unable to do the work they once did effectively. I'm thinking primarily of those involved in hard manual labor that wears a body down over time.
"Give me mine and then abolish the system!"
I like that Dee. So much for your humanitarianism.
The retirement age for social security has been raised before. It is 66 for me as I suspect it is for you. As we live longer, the age should raise. You know you're going to get yours. Don't think we are fools. In fact, you probably are already drawing early social security.
As for your hateful remarks about Republicans, take a look at the polls. The Democrats are going to be smacked right out of office in a couple of months. I can't wait to read your blog then.
And as for the border, I know you don't want to secure it. Tell the truth on your blog for once.
There are no lies in this post. Each point is a fact.
As far as social security is concerned, as I've said before, we have a couple of options:
. stop giving tax cuts to the rich
. stop starting wars for no reason (eg Iraq)
. stop outsourcing jobs offshore (at least by 50%) and hold those businesses accountable that do.
These are all Republicanisms. They will NOT stop any of them. That's why We The People should NEVER elect them into power again!
I was speaking figuratively about the "pay ME what I put in.." What I was saying is, pay back all those who contributed into social security then start a new process. Everyone would agree to that.
Republicans salvaged the banks, why can't they do the same for the american people?
Of course they won't. They expect, since they have their own plan, they can screw the American people out of what they paid into SS and stop the program.
I say No. So do the majority of American people. Take a poll today. How many will vote to END social security. My guess is 90% to 10% and the 10% are rich/big business republicans and the republican congressmen they have in their pockets.
Jools,
Welcome Back. I see you are as passionate as ever.
No. I don't draw SS. I just have my pension. I've paid into SS for over 40 years. I started working as a teen -- no breaks. SS is a benefit WE THE PEOPLE have paid into and deserve when we retire. It is no "entitlement" program as the Republicans allude.
I fully expect to receive my SS (which I fully paid for) when I become age eligible. I will probably draw at the early age because Heaven knows what kind of havoc the repugs will create if they get back into power. They have their own private program and we know they say to hexx to WE THE PEOPLE.
Jools,
Of course I am for securing the border, as I've always said. I just don't think it is logical to put up a 2000 mile wall on the Mexico border like many repugs.
We need CIR and we need it NOW! We have the lowest border crossers and lowest crime rate in over 10 years, as ICE reports. We do, however, need to clear the backlog in Immigration Courts and we do need a sensible way for people to legally immigrate into our country and we do need a path to citizenship for those here crime free that have been contributing to our society. Yes.
However, there is no need for a 2000 mile wall on the MX border only. We need secure borders, including Canada and ports of entry (where the terrorists came in).
No one is talking straight about abandoning Social Security. The private accounts Bush recommended would be only for younger workers, some like Dee might prefer it that way because it gives them control over their contributions. I can see where most might regret that because they would have too many temptations to draw down the account leaving nothing for retirement. The report from the bipartisan commission is due in
December but they are faced with the problem that some don't want to cut benefits and other don't want to raise payroll taxes. Someone suggested that they outcome might be a little of each.
Post a Comment