In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Because why only be Little Shits when you can be Complete Shits?

Kristen J

Yes, the Republicans. Did you guess from the headlines?

Sometimes I wonder if they actually hate working USians. Do they have some list of To Dos in their Republican Lair that says:

1. Bankrupt working USians with high medical costs;
2. Damage working USians by sabotaging the economy;
3. Harm working USians by reenacting a *regressive tax* while we’re on the verge of another recession.

Yup…that’s right during an economic downturn they want to RAISE TAXES…but only on the poor, working and middle classes, because the sky would fall if rich people had to pay taxes. Not because rich people care, mind you, but because future rich people might care, maybe. Won’t you pity the poor future rich people?

35 thoughts on Because why only be Little Shits when you can be Complete Shits?

  3. Jon Stewart has an excellent segment on this in which he not only points out the cruelty (as if that weren’t enough) but also the lack of economic feasibility of what they’re asking. A tiny percentage of a tax increase on the small number of wealthiest people in the country would yield more money than the tax increase on the poorest, which affects so many people.

    I don’t get it either. :/

  5. Republicans do in fact hate ordinary people. They hate everyone but themselves. It’s beyond me why anybody votes for them.

  6. So… the GOP wants to add a $120 billion load to the backs of working stiffs, while flatly refusing to seek about $700 billion by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on income over $250 000.

    I’d drop the old “penny smart, pound foolish” at this juncture, except the Senate Minority Leader up and admitted the GOP’s game is to do whatever is possible to retake power, including making life harder for people and directing the resulting frustration and anger toward the other party.

  7. Bushfire:
    Republicans do in fact hate ordinary people.They hate everyone but themselves.It’s beyond me why anybody votes for them.

    Because everyone thinks they can be rich too, if they just try hard enough. The system allows enough poor people to become rich so that it doesn’t seem as much of a long shot as it really is. They aren’t voting for the economic reality that they are living in and will almost certainly be living in for the rest of their lives, they’re thinking “I’m going to be rich someday, and I don’t want those taxes!” It’s a form of fantasy which the people in charge are more than willing to indulge. This fantasy is especially rampant among white people, who have been especially assured that they, too, can become rich if they just try hard enough and are smart enough, so don’t bother banding together with poor POCs. You’re destined for better things. (Because “better” is always equivalent to “richer”… of course all people believe this not just white Republicans and it’s one of the things that’s wrecking the country.)

    And of course, social issues. I wouldn’t vote for someone who didn’t support abortion and gay rights no matter how much I agreed with them on everything else. Republicans feel the same way.

  8. Bushfire:
    Republicans do in fact hate ordinary people.They hate everyone but themselves.It’s beyond me why anybody votes for them.

    I don’t know what percentage of Americans are Republicans this week – but last I checked, it’s one of two major political parties – and I guess what I’m trying to say is, it must be easier to “hate everyone but themselves” if there are a LOT of people just like themselves who are there to vote for/not hate.

  9. Yeah, honestly, fuck those guys.

    They’d enslave the entire middle class if they thought that it would “boost the economy”.

  10. I have a hard time believing that most people vote Republican on the basis of taxes. I’m guessing the vast majority do it because of the traditional Christian value system Republicans represent. Also, when it does come down to the tax issue, I think there’s a fundamental lack of understanding about the relevant rhetoric that makes it difficult to understand who exactly is paying what. Low income folks pay the least federal taxes – but most people don’t understand the difference between federal and payroll taxes and the resulting tax burden on the poor relative to the rich.

    We really do need to raise the federal tax rate though. For serial. Maybe we can cut a war or two or whatever as well. That would be pretty awesome.

  11. Cut a war or two, close down military bases. Stop spending so many goddamn dollars on military research.

    We have enough nuclear weapons to end the world. I don’t think we’re lacking in “defense”.

  12. auditorydamage: So… the GOP wants to add a $120 billion load to the backs of working stiffs, while flatly refusing to seek about $700 billion by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on income over $250 000.I’d drop the old “penny smart, pound foolish” at this juncture, except the Senate Minority Leader up and admitted the GOP’s game is to do whatever is possible to retake power, including making life harder for people and directing the resulting frustration and anger toward the other party.

    First, this is a poor comparison on a factual standpoint. that $700 billion is over a decade (close to $60 billion for 2012) while that $120 billion is for one year. It is important to compare similar economic metrics/time periods. A little known fact about the Bush tax cuts is that while they will add $4 trillion over a decade, only $700-800 billion will go the “wealthy” making over $250,000. Almost $3.3 trillion (> 80%) will go to the “normal people”. So while I DO agree taxes should go up on the “rich”, taxes generically could rise to pre-Bush levels and the deficit would be cut in a large way, BUT MOST PEOPLE’s taxes would go up. Curious what you all think of that.

    More importantly, the fact that Obama thinks the payroll tax cut will create jobs is in the face of ANY sort of logical economic theory. For those who are non econ-geeks (I confess I am one) the whole theory behind tax cuts leading to long-term growth is that they are PERMANENT. If they are temporary or transitory then they will not affect productive investment decisions. I generally think that while higher taxes don’t really lead to higher growth, that if marginal rates went back to the Clinton levels the economy would not crater.

    Besides giving an important economic lesson, I guess my larger point should be that it would be nice that the whole “rich vs. poor” demographic not be plastered about when the real message should be that Obama clearly can’t lead on short or LONG-term growth strategies. But I guess bitching about evil republicans and how people have to be greedy, stupid christians to vote republican is convenient (regardless how lazy)

  13. Ummm…leave the middle class tax cuts in place and raise taxes on those people making more than $250k. See…easy peasy.

  14. Captain Awkward:
    @Sarah, here’s a link to the Jon Stewart Class Warfare piece that includes a transcript.

    The second part of that, where they called the poor animals and raccoons, made me sick. Very, very sick.

    But I think that clip also answered why people would vote for these measures. When your definition of poor doesn’t include someone who has a refrigerator or a microwave and when you think productive only applies to managers and CEOs…you don’t have a very firm grasp of how the economy really operates.

    And I really do think that’s it. I don’t understand a lot of economic terms and proposals, and it doesn’t help when the name for half of these programs is descriptive in purely how good or bad one party sees it rather than what the program is or does. I vote more on social justice issues, which is thankfully often tied to economical issues. For Repubs, it seems to me what PrettyAmiable said…social issues are easier to understand than the economic issues and thus easier to vote on.

  15. rational_male: Besides giving an important economic lesson…

    I have a feeling your really don’t care, but this basically says, “Hur, dur, feminists/women don’t get economics.” So if you were actually trying (though I highly doubt it) to convince people, you might want to rethink your wording.

  16. Kristen J: Ummm…leave the middle class tax cuts in place and raise taxes on those people making more than $250k. See…easy peasy.

    See.. proven my point that is easy to say, but shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. I don’t know your background, so maybe that is acceptable/expected (if you should know economics then i apologize to sound condescending on your lack of economic knowledge). $11 trillion in deficit in next decade.. and your (and SADLY our presidents perhaps) is to increase taxes $700 billion (6% of deficit….) and this solves everything since demonizing the rich is good? Sigh… guess coming here hoping logical responses is where I errored… oh well

  17. I guess my larger point should be that it would be nice that the whole “rich vs. poor” demographic not be plastered about when the real message should be that Obama clearly can’t lead on short or LONG-term growth strategies.

    Obama is one politician. The attack on the poor by the rich is a major, ongoing, and incredibly destructive issue that has been a major feature of American politics for decades and decades. That’s the real message.

  18. rational_male:

    See.. proven my point that is easy to say, but shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. I don’t know your background, so maybe that is acceptable/expected (if you should know economics then i apologize to sound condescending on your lack of economic knowledge). $11 trillion in deficit in next decade.. and your (and SADLY our presidents perhaps) is to increase taxes $700 billion (6% of deficit….) and this solves everything since demonizing the rich is good? Sigh… guess coming here hoping logical responses is where I errored… oh well

    Lol, I have a graduate degree in economics. Nice try. I’ve seen the math. I know how it works.

  19. $11 trillion in deficit in next decade.. and your (and SADLY our presidents perhaps) is to increase taxes $700 billion (6% of deficit….)

    Ah, I see. You’ve bought the idea that the deficit should be our first priority. I, on the other hand, and others, are more concerned with alleviating human suffering. Perverse of us, but there you are.

  20. Also, I spent a good long bit in big law before going inhouse. I am one of the people you think I’m demonizing.

  21. EG:

    Ah, I see. You’ve bought the idea that the deficit should be our first priority. I, on the other hand, and others, are more concerned with alleviating human suffering. Perverse of us, but there you are.

    Don’t buy the bullshit. Deficits and their projections are linked to the current economic slowdown. The way out of this shitstorm is an increase in the buying power of people who buy things. Once the economy is rolling other measures can be taken to reduce long term deficits like reducing social security for those with money and increasing the social security age for people under 40 (like me) to something more reasonable. Then we might try for single payer which is projected to be significantly less expensive. But…I fear that is too much to hope for in the next decade.

  24. Kristen J: Lol, I have a graduate degree in economics.Nice try.I’ve seen the math.I know how it works.

    Somebody just got pwned in this conversation and I don’t think it’s Kristen J.

  25. rational_male: See.. proven my point that is easy to say, but shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. I don’t know your background, so maybe that is acceptable/expected (if you should know economics then i apologize to sound condescending on your lack of economic knowledge). $11 trillion in deficit in next decade.. and your (and SADLY our presidents perhaps) is to increase taxes $700 billion (6% of deficit….) and this solves everything since demonizing the rich is good?

    See, I apologize if you have a background in English and therefore should have mastered reading comprehension by now, but I’m pretty sure no one ever said letting the tax cuts expire would fix the deficit. I guess this solves everything because now you’re not expected to do any thinking for yourself?

    [/omg demonizing myself ever since I went into banking]

  26. Because the Republican party sells the idea that your hard work is rewarded by money and never mentions the fact to their good Christian followers that not everyone gets the opportunity to follow their dreams, no matter how hard they work, because there’s such a thing as reality: medical bills, low-paying jobs, educational barriers, race politics, gender politics, ailing parents, single parents, immigration, etc., and the haters who sell these realities as personal faults.

    Many Republicans exist in a world where God will take care of Good Christians, that the poor are poor because they are lazy, that the queer get beat up because they deserve it, that women should rightfully rely on their husbands and fathers, that they’re not racist, just following the law, that they shall inherit the Earth.

    Shall I go on?

  27. Yeah. My family is working class and has been working class for generations. We’ve got one estranged, upper class uncle, and my overly educated ass. But we MIGHT all be rich one day, so damn if they don’t always vote Republican because taking money from the rich is wrong.

    Erica: Because everyone thinks they can be rich too, if they just try hard enough. The system allows enough poor people to become rich so that it doesn’t seem as much of a long shot as it really is. They aren’t voting for the economic reality that they are living in and will almost certainly be living in for the rest of their lives, they’re thinking “I’m going to be rich someday, and I don’t want those taxes!” It’s a form of fantasy which the people in charge are more than willing to indulge. This fantasy is especially rampant among white people, who have been especially assured that they, too, can become rich if they just try hard enough and are smart enough, so don’t bother banding together with poor POCs. You’re destined for better things. (Because “better” is always equivalent to “richer”… of course all people believe this not just white Republicans and it’s one of the things that’s wrecking the country.)

  28. Kristen J wins.

    I have a degree in economics as well by the way. Businesses won’t hire until people have money to spend on their products and services. The cost of damn near everything going up and the levels of unemployment means the working class has less disposable income.

    Having an economics degree makes watching the news a bit more depressing though. Seriously, I’m so cynical about the state of the US I have to battle the urge to flee on a regular basis.

    1. You and me both, Miss S.

      I joke regularly about finding an uninhabited island and inviting only non-assholes…but then of course I’d probably not make the cut. 😛

  29. It reminds me of yesterday’s Doonesbury and the “rationale” that it isn’t outrageous if the top 400 families hold as much wealth as the bottom half of the country combined because, as long as both groups have the same amount, it’s all good.

    Trust the invisible hand indeed.

    And I remember a character of Keith Hale’s in the mid-1980’s, calling for a massive redistribution when the cause of distress was that the top 2% of the country controlled 20% of the wealth and the bottom 10% controlled less than 1.5%. It would seem likely that we’ve had the redistribution, just the other way.

  30. Exactly, and its not as if this income inequality is market driven. Indeed, developed economies tend toward less income inequality because of the capital-production cycle. But politically we’ve slowly drained the capital creation power out of the middle and working classes. Which…I know…my hobby horse…no one else cares…leads to long term stagnation in developed economies.

    None of which means I don’t care about deficits. Deficits lead to inflation and inflation hurts lower wage earners and those living on fixed incomes *first*. But there are ways to reduce deficits that don’t involve continuing to (1) hurt individuals who are scraping by and (2) undermine our future growth.

  31. Kristen J: Once the economy is rolling other measures can be taken to reduce long term deficits like reducing social security for those with money…

    Bad idea, plays right into Republican rhetorical hands. The very second that anyone who isn’t rock-bottom poor gets even the slightest decrease in their benefits, Social Security will be re-labelled as a welfare program/communist-income-redistribution-scheme. After all, if Joe Middle-Manager won’t get full benefits when he retires, why should he be “forced” to pay into “Socialist Security”*? They’ll demand that anyone who falls into the not-likely-to-get-full-benefits category be allowed to opt out, which will result in more rhetoric about how unsustainable SS is, which will result in more means-testing, which will result in the cycle repeating. IANAE, though, I could be wrong.

    *Betcha five dollars Fox uses that label.

    1. Ha, sure. But if we were basing policy on what the republicans might say then I would be home baking cookies and making babies…for some dude other than my partner.

  32. Sorry, going to have to disagree. While I do think we need increase taxes on the uber-rich, I also think we need to let that payroll tax cut expire. It made very little difference in an actual paycheck, but it stood to create exactly the Social Security shortfall that the naysayers are pointing to as a reason to dismantle it. It was a foolish tax cut, it did nothing for the economy, added next to nothing to the average person’s income and reduced the amount of funding going into the social safety net. It was a bone we got tossed, and not a very meaty one. Let the s.o.b. expire, and the Bush tax cuts along with it. I’m not about to bitch about one while demanding the other.

  33. Lori S: added next to nothing to the average person’s income

    Well, yeah. If the average person can handle it, great. I’m mostly concerned about the people living below the poverty line.

Comments are currently closed.