Question to Americans about the GOP

[Martim Silva]

Taking advantage of the IMF thread, I would like to ask something:

The Republican Party is defending tax cuts for the mega-rich, while proposing cuts on social programs and other things that help the poor.

Now, here in Europe, a party that defended such a position would rightfully be considered a joke party and would only get about 1% of the loony vote.

But in the US, the Republicans are seen as one of the most powerful political forces, and indeed their demands to keep tax cuts for the mega-rich seen as a valid political stance.

HOW can this position be even removely acceptable? What KIND of people are those who think this can somehow be a decent stance? Or who believe this can somehow be beneficial to anyone but to those who already have everything? Why don't people just shun these bastards?

Why? 

[CountDeMoney]

Look at the Languish posters that support the GOP, an you'll have your answer.

[The Brain]

What did the GOP leadership tell you at the dinner last week?

[CountDeMoney]

What did the GOP leadership tell you at the dinner last week?

Motherfucker, I know you're not talking to me.

[Admiral Yi]

People don't shun these bastards for two reasons.

One, there is still a deeply held belief in the US that a person should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of his own labor.  That whereas some taxes are inevitable to provide for the common good, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to confiscate private income for public purposes, not the other way around.

Second, whereas most Americans accept the need for a social safety net that will help a person who is going through a rough patch, to enable him or her to get back on his feet, they are also suspicious of a permanent underclass, forever dependent on handouts for their existence and with little or no motivation to attain self-sufficiency.

I personally think the modern GOP has talked themselves into an ideological policy dead end on raising taxes, but since your question was on why the stance can be considered remotely acceptable, as opposed to being a darn good idea, I answered thus.

[CountDeMoney]

Second, whereas most Americans accept the need for a social safety net that will help a person who is going through a rough patch, to enable him or her to get back on his feet, they are also suspicious of a permanent underclass negroes, forever dependent on handouts for their existence and with little or no motivation to attain self-sufficiency.

[Slargos]

Second, whereas most Americans accept the need for a social safety net that will help a person who is going through a rough patch, to enable him or her to get back on his feet, they are also suspicious of a permanent underclass negroes, forever dependent on handouts for their existence and with little or no motivation to attain self-sufficiency.

I know if I was American I would probably be a Democrat save for the negro problem. 

[Neil]

Well, the Republicans propose tax cuts for everybody and their dog, not just the 'mega-rich'.

It looks like during your dinner with the Prime Minister of Portugal, he fed you some misinformation.

[Neil]

That's not fair.  Some negroes achieve self-sufficiency through crime, or sometimes through demagoguery.

[Fate]

Why? 

Tax cuts for the rich produce a larger increase in government revenues than taxing the rich.

Once you accept this as truth it will all make sense.

[CountDeMoney]

Tax cuts for the rich produce a larger increase in government revenues than taxing the rich.

WRONG

[Neil]

Tax cuts for the rich produce a larger increase in government revenues than taxing the rich.

WRONG

Well, it can happen over the short term, as the rich plan their taxes so as to incur the liability when the lower rates are in effect.  In the long term though, it's a stupid idea.

[grumbler]

Spicey, I concede.  Not only was your gag successful in suckering Martim into believing there was a "Republican Party" in America (after I said that he was so brilliant he would see through the gag immediately), but you've got the other forum geniuses believing it as well.  When I had lunch with the Portuguese ambassador on Wednesday, he also indicated that he bought into your gag.  I figured, though, that he was just taking Martim's word for it.

I am impressed.  I know you had a lot of help from the Main Stream Media, but selling such an inherently absurd idea as a party that wanted to cut taxes and benefits?  I didn't think it could be done.  You Yale PhDs proved to be right, and we Harvard MDs proved to be wrong.

EDIT:  OOPs!  Wrong thread.  Can someone move this to the thread in the Back Room?

[Slargos]

Spicey, I concede.  Not only was your gag successful in suckering Martim into believing there was a "Republican Party" in America (after I said that he was so brilliant he would see through the gag immediately), but you've got the other forum geniuses believing it as well.  When I had lunch with the Portuguese ambassador on Wednesday, he also indicated that he bought into your gag.  I figured, though, that he was just taking Martim's word for it.

I am impressed.  I know you had a lot of help from the Main Stream Media, but selling such an inherently absurd idea as a party that wanted to cut taxes and benefits?  I didn't think it could be done.  You Yale PhDs proved to be right, and we Harvard MDs proved to be wrong.

EDIT:  OOPs!  Wrong thread.  Can someone move this to the thread in the Back Room?

To the thread where you declare your undying love for Martinus? I'm sure it can be arranged.

[Eddie Teach]

To the thread where you declare your undying love for Martinus? I'm sure it can be arranged.

You got it mixed up, he said Martimanus, i.e. our connected bisexual Portuguese friend.