This is what you get when you vote Republican

[Nancy Waterman]

I would like to see an ad that says this played everywhere and pushed relentlessly:

When you vote for Republicans this is what you get:

You get policies that favor big corporations and the super rich, while the same policies harm working people;

You get tax cuts for the super rich, while you get job cuts and benefit cuts for the working people;

You get deregulated industry for big corporations, while you get increased pollution - poisoned water and air - and products that are not carefully scrutinized and potentially harmful, with no accountability;

You get tax subsidies to big oil corporations and big agriculture, while you get cuts in education funding and infrastructure funding;

And you get manipulated by threats of some vague assault on freedom, while in reality you are giving up your lifestyle to support the wealthiest 1% who give money to Republican coffers.

This is what you get when you vote Republican.

[CurtEastPoint]

1. You absolutely described it dead on. It should be repeated ad infinitum

[Nancy Waterman]

2. I would like to see it on TV, hear it on the radio,

and have it go viral on the internet. Let the Republicans prove it isn't true by changing their behavior, in the meantime put them on the defensive, and let the American people see clearly what they are voting for when they vote for these morons. If anything good comes from Wisconsin and Ohio, it may be the dawning of awareness among the population. but the point needs to be driven home, relentlessly.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. +1000

It continues to amaze me, however, that some people still see no distinctions between Republicans and Democrats. It should be no coincidence to anybody that this current spate of assaults on unions and the poor is taking place only in states with Republican governors and/or Republican-dominated state legislatures.

I really think that we need to keep this thread going and continue to add to the list.

Good summary!

[elocs]

8. No difference: the Big Lie that gave us Bush rather than Gore. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Yup

There's a HUGE difference between the two parties--- if people care to notice. It's too bad we all keep having to learn the hard way that we all need to get out and vote on election day and that Democrats are always the better of the two parties for the poor and middle class despite their general flaws.

[lame54]

4. Funny- that's what I got for voting Democrat

[bread_and_roses]

5. Unfortunately, it's also what you get when you vote for Democrats

Just take a look at NY if you want an example. Or at DC, for the mother/father of all examples.

[Tippy]

6. K&R.....Goog Job....

[elocs]

7. From Madison last Saturday:

When you don't bother to get out and vote for Democrats, this is what you get as well.

[pscot]

10. You left out Endless War in Eastasia

and the National Security State and the War on Women.

[Nancy Waterman]

11. Endless war benefits military corporations

Every Republican policy, bar none, benefits the big corporations and hurts the little guy, including the wars.
People need to see they are being played by appeals to their sense of victimization and their fears.

[pscot]

14. I agree entirely

But I'm afraid Democratic complicity makes it hard for their mouths to form the words. Like abused dogs, they're afraid to bite the hand that also feeds them.

[ProSense]

12. Robert Reich on what Democrats should be saying:

How Democrats Can Become Relevant Again (And Rescue the Nation While They’re At It)

<...>

Democrats have become irrelevant. If they want to be relevant again they have to connect the dots: The explosion of income and wealth among America’s super-rich, the dramatic drop in their tax rates, the consequential devastating budget squeezes in Washington and in state capitals, and the slashing of public services for the middle class and the poor.

<...>

The bottom 90 percent of Americans now earn, on average, only about $280 more per year than they did thirty years ago. That’s less than a 1 percent gain over more than a third of a century. Families are doing somewhat better but that’s only because so many families now have to rely on two incomes.

<...>

Meanwhile, estate taxes (which hit only the top 2 percent) have been slashed, as have taxes on capital gains – which comprise most of the income of the super rich. In the late 1970s, capital gains were taxed at well over 35 percent. Under Bill Clinton, the capital gains rate was 20 percent. Now it’s 15 percent.

<...>

Here’s what Democrats should be saying:

Hike taxes on the super-rich. Reform the tax code to create more brackets at the top with higher rates for millionaires and billionaires. Absurdly, the top bracket is now set at $375,000 with a tax rate of 35 percent; the second-highest bracket, at 33 percent, starts at $172,000 for individuals. But the big money is way higher.

more

Reich's suggestions are good, but Clinton was in office for eight years and income for 90 perecent of American still rose less than 1 percent in that 30-year period. Something drastic needs to be done.

As for the debate to keep the government funded, Democrats should tell the Republicans to go to hell on the cuts. The government will shut down, but that will be on them.

Also, pushing Reich's suggested changes doesn't mean House Republicans will jump on board. In fact, his suggestions and more are already in the President's budget.

<...>

The president, in a $3.7 trillion budget plan released yesterday in Washington, revived dozens of proposals that Congress has rejected, including $129 billion in higher taxes on the overseas profits of U.S. companies. He also proposed changing the tax treatment of oil, gas and coal companies, which would raise about $46 billion.

<...>

The proposal also would bring back pre-2001 tax rates on income and capital gains for individuals earning more than $200,000 annually and married couples making more than $250,000. The estate tax would return to 2009 levels with a $3.5 million per-person exemption and a 45 percent top rate. Under a law Obama signed in December, lower rates expire at the end of 2012.


<...>

The budget plan would limit itemized deductions for top earners to 28 percent, curbing the value of tax breaks for charitable contributions, home mortgage interest and state and local taxes. That proposal has been included in every budget of Obama’s presidency and was rejected as a revenue-raising provision to fund his overhaul of the health system last year.

link

Also included is a $30 billion tax on the largest financial institutions.

If Reich or anyone knows how to get the Republicans on board with this, they need to share their strategy with Congressional Dems and the WH.

If Democrats do these things, they could, as Reich said, "rescue the nation" (from a Republican assault).

Get it done!

[pscot]

13. Sadly, Reich is a member of that elite circle

of economic thinkers who have been systematically excluded from all policy decisions.

[BobbyBoring]

16. That's what they should be saying.

However, there are a only hand full of Dems. that care about us. Kaptur, Kucinich, Sanders (actually I), Wiener, and Giffords come to mind.

Please feel free to ad to the list.

In our currant financial debacle, Dems like Frank, Reid, and Dodd are almost as complicit as any rethugs. Harry Reid back doored congress on the original TARP after it was voted down in congress.

If Dems want to become relevant, they better do a serious port tack now

[frazzled]

17. Giffords?

She is a very conservative Democrat, in case you never noticed. She of course has to be, since she is from a conservative district. But that is not the point.

Don't undercut your own argument by including a reference to someone you clearly know little about. Getting shot doesn't make you a progressive.

[NorthCarolina]

15. Unfortunately, you get the same thing when you vote for DLC-New Democrats and Blue Dogs. nt

[frazzled]

19. And you get Republicans when you don't vote for them.

Let's not pretend that the choice is between progressive democrats and blue dogs. It's almost always between the blue dog and the Republican. I'll still pick the blue dog if I have to: at least it means Pelosi, not Boehner, is Speaker of the House. And that means a huge amount.

If you can't see the difference between the last Congress and this one--even though it contained many blue dog Democrats--then you are quite blind. I sure didn't see women and Planned Parenthood being attacked and defunded last time around, for example.

[Hutzpa]

18. K&R

In a nut shell, yes.. with majority having short attention span.


:thumbsup:

:kick:

[old mark]

20. K&R- Or when you don't vote at all...nt

[opihimoimoi]

21. KnR 37 :o)

[wiggs]

22. Yep. It's clear. What's amazing is how effectively they can convince

their base that the above is wonderful.

[totodeinhere]

23. You are right. That is what you get but unfortunatley, that is exaclty

what a lot of people seem to want. I have a coworker who says he has no problem with corporate welfare but he wants to cut off all of the "welfare queens." (His words, not mine.)

[readmoreoften]

24. So you get the same thing you get when you vote for Democrats?

LIke, the exact same thing?