They favor low taxes and lower government spending. Also, their rhetoric supports sound money and is strongly anti-corporatist.
Government is a tool for the subjugation of one class (middle class, poor) for the benefit of another (politically connected business).
I don’t think Clinton ever expressed the least misgivings about signing it into law. It fit perfectly with his triangulation, it made him look like he was trying to get regulation of the backs of businesses … giant businesses, which would eventually become “too big to fail” businesses … but still, it fit the sound byte, and that was what mattered to Clinton.
Government has in the past been very effective at preventing the worst excesses of unfettered capitalism against the lower class and the poor. You seem to have this naive belief that the marketplace will somehow protect the average guy. Basically, government is the average guy’s only protection against corporate rule. Dump that and we’re all no better than slaves to corporate masters. Government and corporate power are two behemoths, each potentially ruthless and uncaring as the other. The average guy’s only chance is to play one against the other.
Yep, government with its bill of rights, due process, electoral college, providing for the general welfare, E.P.A., Social Security, Medicare/Caid, police, military, fire dept., education, etc ad nauseum is just so damn oppressive!
The cause of this income inequality is cause of hovernment regulation. If there werent so msny damn taxes, people epuld voluntarily give money to chariyy. Yep we should give the wealthy corporations free reign. What could go wrong?
I mean it’s not Walmarts fault that over half their workforce makes below $10 an hour without benefits. Or that a majority of their products are produced by exploited 3rd world labor.
It’s the governments taxes and regulations thats the problem. If the CEO’s were able to make trillions, instead of just billions, then they would be able to spare some money for their workforce and charity organizations.
Why? Giving more power to the federal government has, on several occasions past, and not even beginning with the New Deal, given more power to the people, and served an anti-elitist agenda.
I talked about this in the Stupid Republican Idea of the Day thread, but I think it bears repeating. One word: ALEC.
From here. Please take a look and see for yourself how this organization is working to hijack education through the legislature to promote climate change denial in schools (just one in a long list of anti-democratic, pro-corporation bills they promote). When people doubt climate change, they are less likely to worry about things like the massive effort we will need to undertake to switch to more sustainable forms of power, which the oil and gas and coal guys don’t like very much because it will cost them billions of dollars if the general population does not remain rubes, regardless of what an informed public would enact via their government though their unmolested self-interest.
ALEC is funded by the same people who created/fund the Tea Party, the Koch brothers foremost among them. I’m sorry, but if you fall for any Tea Party rhetoric I am afraid you have been duped by their skill at ‘messaging’ and are missing out on what a sucker you are. Don’t take that the wrong way; I respectfully hope for all suckers to escape that status in order to reduce the suffering in the world, among other things.
No, no I didn’t mean it “that way”. I meant, the “extreme” is usually defined as such BY THE OTHER SIDE. the Tea Party thinks they are “it” but are viewed as extremists by the Left.
Occupy similarly viewed as “extreme” by the right. (Other side)
Yes, but the point is, the Tea Party has the Republican Party by the nuts. Occupy hasn’t even gotten within grasping distance of the Democrats.
See the Pew Political Typology – at present, the GOP has two reliable bases – “Staunch Conservatives” (think Tea Partiers) and “Main Street Republicans” (think your grandfather’s GOP, or RINOs if you prefer). It can’t please both, and it can’t win without both, and, as we’ve seen the past three years, the SC/TP won’t just go along and play nice any more, but will actually mount primary-challenges against insufficiently hard-RW Pubs.
And, one not-so-reliable base – the “Libertarians.” Most of these are moderate libertarians, not the radical sort you’ll find in the LP – still, they likely will be displeased by most things that please the SC/TP, and vice-versa.
Ever since the 1970s, Republican success has been based on burying the differences between factions in a “no enemies to the right” coalition. It now appears that coalition is no longer viable.
Quite true. However:
That is also true. Wonder why?
Latino vote?
Of course, one of those few other things is votes.
How? I have never seen a single slogan on a Tea Party rally-sign or a single plank in a Tea Party organization’s platform that reflects sound economic principles or could “return” economic power to the individual. “Taxed Enough Already!” does neither.
Those are “sound economic principles” only in certain times and circumstances, which we are not living in now. (Hint: Keynes has never yet been discredited, though some RWs seem to take it as an article of faith that he was, somehow, at some point. The rising school in economics today is Post-Keynesianism, which mostly but not entirely means getting back to Keynesian basics.)
How so? Examples?
How so? Examples?
No, that would be capitalism.
The difference is that the average guy has a vote in the one and not in the other.
Catholics make up about a quarter of the population of the US, they’re historically a Democratic constituency, and politically, they tend to match the general popuation. Catholics are pretty much as mainstream as you get, and if you win the Catholic vote. Put another way, Catholics voted for the winning presidential candidate in every election since 1948 except for 1952, 1968, 1988, and 2000.
I dunno, BrainGlutton, if you have an idea long these lines, how about just saying what it might be?
Latino votes reliably Democratic, however, I don’t think it’s for religious reasons. If Roman Catholicism issues were a guiding light for the Latino vote, they would tend to vote Republican as the Republicans are all anti-abortion, anti-contraception, sexist slut shamers like the Catholic Church is.