And if you can't bring yourself to directly address the condition of elected Democrats' hearts, at least go as far as the late pastor of my hometown Baptist Church, who, when asked if he thought so and so was a Christian would reply:
I don't have a soul-meter, but if I were directed to gather evidence of their faith, I doubt I could introduce enough into evidence for a jury to convict them of being a Christian.
I haven't been able to find any evidence to convict the Democratic Party in DC of caring about the poor and middle class for the last 40 years, by a preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt, especially after Cap and Trade passed the House, despite restrained and oftentimes apologetic rhetoric of Republican prosecutors.
Democratic Party assault on the poor and middle class
Last week, we left "it to you to decide which party cares 'more' for the poor", but after the Democrat Party's passage of the Cap and Trade assault on the poor and middle class, this member of "you" aka We the People announces his decision, at least with respect to the elected members of the parties.
The Democratic Party has held itself out as the party of the "little guy" and the "working man" since the 1930s. We concede that the portions of FDR's first New Deal providing temporary welfare relief and the Social Security Act, including its provisions for Unemployment Compensation, have proven to be comforts for those constituencies that both parties have long embraced as part of what Reagan dubbed the federal "safety net for the truly needy".
But, ObamaDems are more accurately defined as having turned their backs on the poor (pictured).
Policies that produce less poor people and elevate more peoples' prosperity eschewed by Democrats
But I am hard pressed to identify any policies of the Democratic Party since JFKs tax rate cuts in the early 1960s that have done anything but make the little guy smaller and working men more poorly compensated.
The un-de-Newted Bill Clinton advocated policies that extended the Reagan Recovery to historic proportions which President George W. Bush and the GOP prolonged until 2006 thanks to JFK/Reagan-like supply side tax rate cuts, until the Democratic Party-protected Fannie/Freddie mortgage credit policies, combined with Greenspan's loose money FED and Democrat Congress promised hostile to investors policies sent investors on strike and launched a recession in late 2007 until the credit crunch in the Fall of 2008 made it the current Great Recession.
President Barack Obama was elected in large part due to the Hope that he would bring the Change needed to end the recession. We were told that GOP policies that "favored the rich" caused the downturn. Of course, we have been fed this stale line since the 1930s, and even all thru the late 80s as the Reagan policies the left loathed worked magic before our eyes. Then we heard the same line in the 90s as Bill Clinton backed cap gains tax cuts that "favored" the rich.
ObamaDems' differing goals and definitions for helping little guys and working people?
President Obama and the Democrats claim to favor the poor as they decry the suffering of the poor. As a Democrat of 18 years, so did I. In fact, I cared so much that I left the Dem Party in 2000 convinced by two decades of evidence before my eyes that the policies democrats pursue are proven failures at alleviating the suffering of the poor.
I assumed that the suffering we all alluded to was peoples' inability to afford necessities via the fruits of the labor and have an opportunity for moving up the economic ladder or for the middle class to increase their wealth and prosperity over time.
Over time it became increasingly difficult to maintain the notion that Democratic Party leaders shared the same definition. After the Cap and Trade vote it is impossible.
The Cap and Trade bill passed by the House would directly do to the poor and middle class what we decry is done to them by recessions. Cap and Trade would intentionally raise the price of necessities, i.e. food and energy.
Didn't the Democrats see the suffering caused by $4/gallon gasoline last year as lower income families had to choose between balanced meals and the fuel to get to work?
How long will Dems/Independents keep hands over their ears still hoping for change we can believe in?
They couldn't miss it, yet they pass a law that defines the air we breathe out a pollutant with measures to "save the planet" via skyrocketing electricity rates?
Does that phrase sound familiar, or are you one of the millions of Democrats still holding their hands over their ears when candidate Obama was caught on tape saying anthing but "hope", "change" and "I'm not George Bush"?
Obama told us, but too many refused to listen (links provided upon request so as to identify the truly ignorant)
Senator Obama is on tape from last year saying, variously, the following precursors to his style of "caring" for poor little guys and the middle class, that:
- Americans need to learn a lesson from high fuel costs that should be at or above $4/gallon; albeit at a more gradual rate;
- His cap and trade plan would necessarily lead to skyrocketing electricity rates and bankrupt the coal industry;
- We can't continue to consume as much as we do and drive our SUVs and have the world say, OK.
Last summer lower income families were choosing between Kroger brand and Le Seur Peas so that they might get an extra gallon of gas to make it to work. Forget that trip to the next town to see Grandma kids.
Apparently ObamaDems' definition of suffering is when people aren't on his welfare (no longer to work version repealed by the "stimulus") program or working for the government.
A still denial self-described "Independent" Obama voter justifies the Cap and Trade assault as acceptable since it "encourages" the development of alternative energy. No matter that what it actually encourages is the importation of more imported oil since no carbon was expelled on American soil in its production, but I digress.
Given that Spain went bankrupt trying to perform alchemy via legislative fiat; given that even Kennedys in Massachusetts and Greenies in the Mohave Desert won't allow Holland to land in the Lower Forty-Eight; given the fact that wind power is 1% of what meets our energy needs now; and given that their is no prospect that any alternative energy breakthru is in sight much less that could be utilized within any foreseeable future that could be substituted for oil and coal, one must conclude that the supporters of Cap and Trade desire a precipitous reduction of our standard of living with the main alternatives being horse, donkey, firewood and human walking power.
GOP must eschew the euphemisms designed to give Democrats' moral cover
We must pray that the Senate will reject the bill, but for that to happen, I would suggest that, despite Minority Leader John Boehner's "Hour long filibuster" the GOP needs to rake off the gentlemanly gloves for Twenty-Four hours a day and quit referring merely to the bill's effect on "consumers" and certain coal energy-intensive states, or the, as Representative Eric Cantor (and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell), "laudable goal" of reducing greenhouse gases.
Re-engagement with reality is among the recession's benefits
What is laudable about it? When even the acolytes of the Church of Manmade Global "warming" now only refer to "climate change", given a decade of the non-warming event we call "cooling", isn't it time for those of us to quit the PC cowering, especially when the whole concept is now a secretly held joke during this Great Recession? Or as George Will says:
Now, say Nordhaus and Shellenberger, "the green bubble" has burst, pricked by Americans' intensified reluctance to pursue greenness at a cost to economic growth. The dark side of utopianism is "escapism and a disengagement from reality that marks all bubbles, green or financial." Re-engagement with reality is among the recession's benefits.
The bill hurts "consumers"?
Can someone please identify any non-consumer that isn't dead. Earth to GOP: All human beings are consumers.
The bill hurts some states more than others?
Earth to GOP: Can someone identify any state not populated by people that have to consume to live.
Cap and trade would raise the price of nearly every good produced and transported to consumers in every state.
Translation: the price of food will rise in every state. All people have to eat. Many will be unable to eat enough.
The Cap and Trade bill is nothing less than an immoral assault on the poor and lower and middle income families.
GOP: Chuck the euphemisms. We have been inaccurately assaulted as not caring for the poor and middle class for decades. Now, under Obama, the Dems have overreached and revealed themselves in the raw.
Call the ObamaDems out on the immorality of only wanting the votes of the poor, rather than caring if the results of their policies actually improve their lot.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.