Tuesday, May 15, 2012


The Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently passed the Ryan budget. As long as there's a Democrat in the White House, and/or as long as Ds control the Senate, it won't become law. But looking at the above graphic (it gets bigger if you click it), it's clear where the priorities are, and what would happen were Rs to get control.

They're fine with this -- more than fine: delighted. When all you care about is lowering taxes on the most wealthy, and increasing defense spending (on party lines, their Armed Services Committee recently authorized money for missile defense on the East Coast, against the wishes of our military! Again, it won't happen. Yet. But it says a lot.)

I get that lots of people, perhaps uncomfortable with their own sexuality, think a party's stance on gay rights is more important (oh wow oh wow oh wow) than the above. Or on immigration (interestingly, illegal immigration has ceased to be an actual problem.) But these economic priorities, were they to become law, will define our future. And by "define," I mean "destroy." It seems pretty obvious, and ought to be, even to a mind washed by Fox "news" into believing that Obama is a socialist Nazi coming after their guns and religion. The numbers are there, in ones and zeroes.

It's not rocket surgery (thanks, Pieter): for anyone but a fellow multimillionaire to vote for Mitt Romney, they'd have to have looked at those numbers and have drawn a positive and specific conclusion: Yes, I agree it's in the best interest of the country to cut help for the needy, to cut spending on education, research, health care, environment, in order to pay for increased military spending (which I agree is vital despite the fact that we outspend the totality of the rest of the planet more than double) and in order to maintain -- no: further lower -- historically low tax rates on those very wealthy people; because I agree it's best for our country when they pay less in taxes. Those are The Rominee's priorities, they're teabaggR priorities, and they're mine. And I'm convinced that despite the fact it's never worked before, this time if we lower taxes, raise defense spending, and cut social programs, it'll balance the budget. Because this time, we'll cut social programs to the point when they don't really exist, and I reject the data that show even then, it doesn't add up. I've looked at it, I've thought about it, I've seen the teabaggR future, and I like it.

Because, no matter how important you think guns and gays are, that's what a vote for The Rominee will get you. So make the case. Convince me I'm wrong. Anyone?


Frank Drackman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sid Schwab said...

Borderline, Frank. Couldn't quite pull the trigger.

Anonymous said...

The budget reflects priorities of those that propose it. Since Republicans as a whole are clompletely devoid of empathy, as evidenced by their presumptive Rominee, it,s a perfect reflection of those priorities.
That these sociopaths represent one of our major parties is an indication of the sickness of our body politic. Will amputation become necessary, doc?


Sid Schwab said...

Oh, it's necessary all right. But will enough people be able to read the prescription?

Anonymous said...

About half, I'd say. About the level of the Mason-Dixon.


Frank Drackman said...

@ Painless
its "Mason And Dixon" not "Mason-Dixin"
and its the border between Pennsylvania & Maryland, funny how few people know that.
"Completely Devoid of Empathy"?
Well I'm mostly a RepubicKKKlan, except for Al Sharpton in 2004, and Zell Miller, and I buy $500 of Girl Scout Cookies a year(NOT tax deductible)volunteer at a Senior Center, and give the homeless guy on 285 a few spare Lira every now & then(You can't give em REAL Money)


Anonymous said...

Was there supposed to be a point in there somewhere?
Your fellow citizens are dying for lack of access to health care, and you're talking about cookies? Is that some kind of joke?


Anonymous said...

Maybe you worry too much. According to Gallup " By a 56% to 36% margin, Americans think Barack Obama rather than Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election."

Sid Schwab said...

Yeah, well, I guess when it comes to politics I'm a glass half empty guy. It's a long way to November, and in a rational world it ought to be even a wider margin than it is.

We've just seen the tip of the moneyberg when it comes to RWS™ superpac spending, and already there's a huge clot of people not interested in voting on facts...

Popular posts