The haves and the have mores
Robert Rouse
December 22, 2005
George W. Bush once gave a speech before a group of extremely wealthy and influential Republicans and during his speech he said, "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
This was a defining moment for Bush. He was telling this group (and the rest of us) that they were his reason for running for office. They were now the group that he was going to do his best to protect. And while most politicians are either wealthy or on their way to wealthy, the Republicans seem more inclined to be malevolent and the Democrats more altruistic. I'm not very sure what causes these conditions, but as far as the Republicans go, it appears to mainly affect the politicians and the affluent right-wing. I know several Republicans who are extremely charitable, but they don't seem to make the connection that their GOP representatives are not of the same frame of mind.
Republicans claim to represent the religious right, yet soon after taking office Bush proposed that the more of the charitable work in this country be taken on by churches - his "faith based initiative". Ostensibly this was to lighten the load of the federal treasury and save money. Yet since the attacks of 9/11 he has done his best to make the stockholders of Halliburton extremely wealthy. With no bid contracts awarded to Dick Cheney's former company to rebuild Iraq and New Orleans. I'm not a Yale graduate, but it seems that a clear thinking man would have made sure that the citizens of both places were the ones who received the much needed jobs of rebuilding. In Iraq, there would be more people feeding their families by working to rebuild instead of taking money from the insurgency to plant bombs. Mississippi and Louisiana now have the highest unemployment statistics in the nation - but the jobs instead went to the sub contractors hired by Halliburton.
Bush refuses to tax the people who can afford it the most - they are, after all, his base. So who do the Republicans decide to take away from? The people who can least afford it. With Dick Cheney providing the evil tie breaking vote, the Senate has cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid because let's face it, the Republicans don't care if the poor get sick and die. They also cut funding for student loans - hey, if they're smart enough, the poor can get scholarships!
The major philosophical difference between the left and the right is easily explained. Imagine there are two islands. On one island is a bountiful supply of food, water, shelter, and other comfortable amenities. Between the two islands is a boat with a single oar. With hard work, ingenuity and dedication, people in the boat have a chance to reach the bountiful island. The other island is a barren desolate place without even enough wood to build a boat. The Republicans see no reason for the people on the bountiful island to help the people of the other island. They assume the barren island has the means to make it to bountiful. The Democrats are the people in the boat. They keep rowing back and forth between the two islands, sometimes taking aid from bountiful to barren and sometimes helping people from the barren get to bountiful.
Overcoming the differences between the two parties is akin to solving the mystery of the Gordian Knot. There was a time right after the ideological days of the 1960s when it appeared the Republicans were coming around. Today Richard Nixon would be considered a Democrat because of his policies - a corrupt Democrat, but a Democrat nonetheless. Democrats, the oldest enduring political party in the world, have waged an unwavering opposition to rule by the elite. This is precisely why they remain so opposed to the policies of George W. Bush.
During the reign of King George the W, we have huge corporations rescinding pension plans. Others, such as Enron, go belly up and destroy the lives of their employees while the board of directors get away with millions. Oil company executives are making record profits while the common man has to give up on many essentials just to afford gasoline for his car - and these same oil executives are not even forced to tell the truth during Senate testimony. Sen. Ted Stevens, who ruled against making the oil execs take an oath, bullied a bill through legislation to get $223-million to build a bridge from a tiny hamlet in Alaska to a small island, thus the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere". Some in the Senate thought the money would be best used to help rebuild Interstate 10 across Lake Pontchartrain near hurricane ravaged New Orleans, but Stevens would have none of that. The Louisiana project would only aid an impoverished state. It is this type of elitist attitude we have to overcome. We are all Americans, rich or poor. Yes, George, the rich are an impressive crowd - the haves and the have mores. But by feeding their greed, you are starving this nation.
This was a defining moment for Bush. He was telling this group (and the rest of us) that they were his reason for running for office. They were now the group that he was going to do his best to protect. And while most politicians are either wealthy or on their way to wealthy, the Republicans seem more inclined to be malevolent and the Democrats more altruistic. I'm not very sure what causes these conditions, but as far as the Republicans go, it appears to mainly affect the politicians and the affluent right-wing. I know several Republicans who are extremely charitable, but they don't seem to make the connection that their GOP representatives are not of the same frame of mind.
Republicans claim to represent the religious right, yet soon after taking office Bush proposed that the more of the charitable work in this country be taken on by churches - his "faith based initiative". Ostensibly this was to lighten the load of the federal treasury and save money. Yet since the attacks of 9/11 he has done his best to make the stockholders of Halliburton extremely wealthy. With no bid contracts awarded to Dick Cheney's former company to rebuild Iraq and New Orleans. I'm not a Yale graduate, but it seems that a clear thinking man would have made sure that the citizens of both places were the ones who received the much needed jobs of rebuilding. In Iraq, there would be more people feeding their families by working to rebuild instead of taking money from the insurgency to plant bombs. Mississippi and Louisiana now have the highest unemployment statistics in the nation - but the jobs instead went to the sub contractors hired by Halliburton.
Bush refuses to tax the people who can afford it the most - they are, after all, his base. So who do the Republicans decide to take away from? The people who can least afford it. With Dick Cheney providing the evil tie breaking vote, the Senate has cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid because let's face it, the Republicans don't care if the poor get sick and die. They also cut funding for student loans - hey, if they're smart enough, the poor can get scholarships!
The major philosophical difference between the left and the right is easily explained. Imagine there are two islands. On one island is a bountiful supply of food, water, shelter, and other comfortable amenities. Between the two islands is a boat with a single oar. With hard work, ingenuity and dedication, people in the boat have a chance to reach the bountiful island. The other island is a barren desolate place without even enough wood to build a boat. The Republicans see no reason for the people on the bountiful island to help the people of the other island. They assume the barren island has the means to make it to bountiful. The Democrats are the people in the boat. They keep rowing back and forth between the two islands, sometimes taking aid from bountiful to barren and sometimes helping people from the barren get to bountiful.
Overcoming the differences between the two parties is akin to solving the mystery of the Gordian Knot. There was a time right after the ideological days of the 1960s when it appeared the Republicans were coming around. Today Richard Nixon would be considered a Democrat because of his policies - a corrupt Democrat, but a Democrat nonetheless. Democrats, the oldest enduring political party in the world, have waged an unwavering opposition to rule by the elite. This is precisely why they remain so opposed to the policies of George W. Bush.
During the reign of King George the W, we have huge corporations rescinding pension plans. Others, such as Enron, go belly up and destroy the lives of their employees while the board of directors get away with millions. Oil company executives are making record profits while the common man has to give up on many essentials just to afford gasoline for his car - and these same oil executives are not even forced to tell the truth during Senate testimony. Sen. Ted Stevens, who ruled against making the oil execs take an oath, bullied a bill through legislation to get $223-million to build a bridge from a tiny hamlet in Alaska to a small island, thus the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere". Some in the Senate thought the money would be best used to help rebuild Interstate 10 across Lake Pontchartrain near hurricane ravaged New Orleans, but Stevens would have none of that. The Louisiana project would only aid an impoverished state. It is this type of elitist attitude we have to overcome. We are all Americans, rich or poor. Yes, George, the rich are an impressive crowd - the haves and the have mores. But by feeding their greed, you are starving this nation.