Maher Increases His Attack: Now The Entire Democratic Party.

“The Democratic Party is the new Republican Party.”

“Third party?  What about a first party?”

Unlike last week when he got some cheers and clapping during his ending rant, this one (especially the Dems as the new Pubs) was much less appreciated by the crowd.  I’d post a link but it will just be removed quickly by HBO.  He told the truth.  His opinions of what would make a good new party are debatable however his take on the two current parties couldn’t be more accurate.  The Democratic party is just right of a centrist party, and the Republicans are for the most part extreme right.

So all the people thinking he’d lay down after last week… well he actually turned it up.  Will people listen?  Does a News Opinion show on HBO have any clout?

Way to go Bill.  Keep reminding people that our government is basically the same no matter who is in control.  They both bail out Wall Street, etc.

Advertisements

20 responses to “Maher Increases His Attack: Now The Entire Democratic Party.

  1. I am a Democrat who thinks that Maher is right on. Not all of us are in lockstep with the party.

  2. Erika, what most people don’t seem to recognize is that both parties have been hijacked by self interest groups. The Republicans by crazy religious nuts and the Dems by right sided moderates.

  3. The bankers own both parties.

  4. I agree with Maher that Obama hasn’t done enough, but to widen that to the entire Democratic Party seems to kind of contradict this. Obama NEEDS Democratic votes to pass legislation. And as for the bailout, it’s not popular, but the economy would be in much worse shape if things had just continued to fall.

  5. C’mon, Nick C. To say that the the self-interest groups that have hijacked the Democratic party are “right sided moderates” is laughable. How about the left-leaning labor unions that have had the Dems by the short hairs for decades.

    And as far as the Republicans being hijacked by crazy religious nuts, is taking it a little far. The “crazy religious nuts” may make up a constituency of the Republican party, but if all it was were the “crazy religious nuts” who voted for “W,” he never would have gotten elected TWICE.

    And as far as the Democratic Party being “just right of a centrist party?” PLEASE! “Centrists” don’t clamor for MORE and MORE government control. With Obama at the helm they are becoming more and more Socialist with the government aiming to control more and more – and THAT isn’t “just right of a centrist party.”

    I have no problem with your point that the parties have been hijacked. There’s no doubt about it. But let’s be honest about what or whom they’ve been hijacked by. It’s MONEY that’s hijacked all of them.

    The problem is (well, it’s not the ONLY problem, but it’s one of the biggies) is that NEITHER of these parties knows how to exercise any kind of fiscal restraint. They’ don’t. They’re like heroin addicts who just can’t stop injecting their veins with someone else’s (our) money. It’s like they’ve all been given one giant credit card with no limit and no minimum monthly payment and they just keep spending and spending and spending. You can’t give everybody what they want and expect that no one has to foot the bill.

    To get re-elected to Congress, you have to show that you can bring back the $$$ to your district. Just look at the political ads every two years. It’s all about (if not stated directly) how much cabbage Representative or Senator X brought back to the district – or how many pieces of legistlation that he/she voted for that “seem” to give people “something for nothing.”

    Well, something for nothing, doesn’t exist! Never has. Never will. SOMEBODY is going to pay for it. Either NOW or a generation (or 2 or 3) from now.

    It would be refreshing for someone to say AGAIN and AGAIN until it really registered with the public that “WE’RE BROKE!” WE can’t afford to give everything to everybody. We can’t afford to be the world’s policeman. We can’t afford to act like money grows on trees.

    If Obama REALLY wanted to show he was “different,” he would propose – and PUSH it through (his own party is in control after all) an immediate spending freeze as well as NUMEROUS spending cuts. Yes, the bailouts MAY be necessary – but there are plenty of other areas where we can STOP SPENDING MONEY that we don’t have. Can some taxes be raised? Probably. But taxes go up every year (whether you’re talking about local, state or federal) and yet budget deficits continue to grow. Why? Because we spend too much!!!Believe me, there’s plenty of room for cutting in our ever more bloated government budget. It’s just that nobody ever has the balls to say it (while trying to get elected) and then MEAN IT (once they get elected) by actually voting AGAINST all these spending bills (because it would jeopardize their chances at getting re-elected).

    It’s time to resurrect a new version of the WHIG or the BULL MOOSE party – or SOMETHING other than what we’ve got. ‘Cause what we’ve got aint cuttin’ it! Maher isn’t happy because Obama isn’t moving far left fast enough for him. O’Reilly isn’t happy because Obama is moving far left too fast for him. Ultimately, it will be all of us who will be unhappy because no matter which party is in control of the executive and/or legislative branches, we all wind up getting screwed. That’s about the only certainty in all of this.

    People don’t vote anymore because they figure they’re just going to get bent over regardless of who takes control. I don’t know if “Laugh In” will make your Top 100 list, but to quote a great line from that show, “And that’s the truth!”

  6. dsm9412, Maher made a point that while he attacked Obama for not doing what he promised, he stated “but Obama has a party in his way for everything… the Democratic Party.”

    Rick Holy, the idea that we’re going socialist is absurd. “Socialized medicine,” as the far right zealots call it works great in the UK. I don’t think health care and everyone paying taxes so that people can be properly cared for is “communist.” I think it’s humanitarian.

    As for the government buying into companies… that isn’t socialist either. The only reason they’re doing it is that Lobbyists for those corporations are convincing them to do it. The goal isn’t government controlled corporations, it’s “save my ass.”

    For anyone who thinks we’d be worse off if those companies collapsed… you’re dead wrong. We’d be far better off if they did. It would force the changes needed for our society to THRIVE vs survive.

    We’re massively hurting ourselves with this nonsense and we need to get out of it.

  7. Nick … believe it or not technically what is going on with the pseudo-nationalization of large industries (banks, auto makers, etc) is closer to the economics of fascism than either socialism or capitalism.

    The Dems certainly are right of center as far as Maher is concerned, but then again, he’s to the left of Lenin most of the time.

  8. NDBob, I’ve decided not to compare what is going on here with Germany and the rise of the Nazi Party because well it’s just plain scary.

    The control they’re seeking is very fascist. So it is definitely right of center.

    Maher to the left of Lenin? That sounds funny. However he’s a Libertarian. Libertarians are generally very middle of the road. Less government & more freedoms. Which is supposedly what something like 60% of the Nation would be if they actually voted on what they cared about. That’s the shocking statistic.

    Most of us aren’t far right or far left but in the middle wanting less government and more freedoms.

  9. Nick C. Believe me, I’m no big fan of the auto industry bailouts. If the economic situation was otherwise “good,” bailing the auto companies out would appear less necessary than it does now when we’re in the middle of a big mess.

    But – as you argue – if being willing to pay more taxes for nationalized health care is humanitarian, so is being willing to pay more taxes to save hundreds of thousands of jobs. YES – hundreds of thousands. People may point to GM or Chrysler or whoever and say “X” number of jobs, but they’re forgetting how many small to mid-size companies (which employ more “total” people than the “big” companies) are reliant on GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc., being in business in order for THEM to be in business. The companies that make all the parts that go into those cars.

    If you add up all of those jobs that would also be lost, we ARE talking hundreds of thousands of jobs. To add that to the current unemployment roles would plunge this country into a Depression.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m honked off that the government has had to step in and bail out Wall Street’s behind. And I’m less than pleased that the govt. is also having to bail out the auto industry because of the auto industry’s own stupidity. I’m a free-market believer and my gut reaction is to say “let them go under,” and let something better replace them – we’d be better off in the long run. But my fear is if they go under RIGHT NOW, a Depression results – and it would make the one in the 30’s look like nothing because the last 2 generations (which includes me and I’m guessing you) has no idea of what it is to go without. Because of that, the S**t would hit the fan in a way unlike that in the 30’s.

    “Let ’em go under” is great in principle – and I’d love more than anything to support that – because THEY got themselves into this mess – but I fear if they did go under what disaster would result – and that WOULDN’T be the humanitarian way to go.

  10. Rick Holy, taking care of the health of everyone is Humanitarion, setting your society up for certain collapse is well suicide.

    What do you think is going to happen from all this? The last time a government did such a huge “bail out,” they took total control of everything and attacked their neighboring countries in a world domination attempt. We’re not heading down a socialist path, but a fascist one.

    “Let ’em go under,” is great for everyone. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people would lose their jobs. GOOD. Every now and then you have to be knocked down to get back up and be in a better situation.

    Capitalism can’t work when the richest 1 percent is richer than the poorest 90% combined. That is when the cracks in capitalism start to show. That is what is happening now, and it is what happened before the last depression.

    We need to let it runs its course. We are only going to make it massively worse later. The people need to be fired, and unhappy and it needs to spread so the changes can happen that will end up driving many of that 1% BROKE. Which is the real reason for the bailouts. To save the rich not the rest. They’re the ones who hired the lobbyists.

    We need to let it all fall apart, so we can pick it back up and fix the problems that caused the breakdown. One of the causes by the way is the lack of a national health care system. Having corporations pay for their retired employees health care has put them BILLIONS in debt.

  11. Getting knocked down is one thing – getting thrown into a Depression the likes we haven’t seen before is another. Believe me, pal, I’m more in line with you than you think – I say “screw ’em, it’s their own fault,” but to say that hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their jobs is “GOOD,” (your words, not mine), is NOT Good! (It’s an easy thing to say, espceially if YOU’RE one of the people who will still have a job and food on the table for your family).

    Bottom line is that overpaid corporate executives, lobbyists, and unprincipled government hacks at ALL levels of government have brought this about (and yes, even the unions who didn’t see the writing on the wall are partly responsible)- but who ALWAYS winds up paying for it is the little guy with the family to support.

    So say, “Sure, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs will be a good thing.” Maybe on paper, and maybe looking toward a long term solution.

    The challenge for this President and this Congress is to find a short term solution that will get us through it while at the same time NOT implementing a long term solution that will ultimately make things worse.

  12. Rick Holy, I’m allowing my education and business sense get into this argument, and it says “Let them die.”

    It’s BEST for the economy. It’s BEST for the people who get fired. It’s BEST for everyone. Think of this is a dam. The dam is holding back total destruction. Capitalism and our lively-hood is the valley. We’ve got massive cracks in the dam. We’re putting non-water proof band aids over the cracks, when we need to be building a bigger stronger damn right behind the old one.

    Letting them go is a GOOD thing. Because hundreds of thousands of people is going to be better than the millions who are going to pay and pay dearly sometime in the next 10 years.

  13. But Obama and the Democratic Congress got elected with all those auto worker union votes. Do you honestly think they’re just going to “cut them loose” and send them to the unemployment line? Not a chance in hell.

  14. Rick Holy, they should. They have to. They’re practically screwing them over right now. Sorry, guys but $10B owed to you? Sorry. It’s your problem now. You don’t think that hurt? The UAW now has to figure out how to pay $10B in medical bills.

    Yes, you do what is best for the American people, period. That’s your job. You can send people to die but you can’t fire them?

    They need to do their job.

  15. I agree with that statement COMPLETELY! The problem is that NEITHER party has been doing their job for decades. Now we’re screwed – and unfortunately for a good number of our hard working families who “play by the rules,” REALLY, ROYALLY SCREWED!!!

  16. Wow, Why are you Americans so afraid from Government involvement?
    Without TARP back in September, most of the American banks would’ve crashed and a lot of people would’ve kissed a lot of money goodbye.

    Nick, comparing the US to Nazi Germany and calling the the government’s policy fascist is stupid. Obama is clear about not wanting to own banks and auto makers, and as soon as he can he would sell the government’s share.
    If I was an American I would want the government to be a minority share holder in the banks for several reasons:
    1. To make sure this kind of thing won’t happen again.
    2. To get a cut of future profits at least untill all the money that was given would be paid back (and no, burrowing more money from foriegn banks and investors to replace the goverment’s is not acceptable).
    3. To make sure executives and other employies who almost ruined the banks, won’t get millions in bonuses to keep them (Gietner should have fired them all).

    I agree with you about the UAW. Obama should have busted the union when they started objecting to the various proposed bailouts.
    The UAW is responsible to what happened to the auto industry.

  17. TomSD – some of us are “afraid” (or more accurately leary/nervous/uncomfortable with MORE government involvement) because in this country, once “Government” gets it’s tentacles into things – it becomes permanent – instead of only temporary.

    And it’s not government in general, but the FEDERAL government taking too much control that we’re nervous about. Large bureaucracies tend to operate much less efficiently than smaller ones. The Founding Fathers didn’t envision a federal government in the huge, bloated role that it occupies today. The Federal government was to provide for a certain numer of limited functions. The rest was to be left to the people and the local, and “state” governments.

    Today, in the U.S., the Federal government gets bigger and bigger every year – bigger in how much they spend, how in much they take in revenue from its citizens, and bigger in how much they control.

    Government is fine. But it should be a smaller centralized, federal government with less control – and more control and power given to the local and state governments. I’m no historian, but I believe that’s what the Founding Fathers intended. I think if they saw the role the Federal government was playing today, they’d drop a load.

  18. The Founding Fathers wrote the US constitution over 225 ago. In this day and age, a country as big as USA needs a strong to a degree central government.
    Just because the states are called states, it doesn’t mean they have the power that goes along with the name. Canadian provinces have a lot more power than the American states. Can you imagine a referendum in Florida or Montana about succeeding from the union like Quebec had 14 years ago.

    Enlighten me on when and to where the government got it’s tentacles into and it became permanent?

  19. TomSD – “Just because the states are called states, it doesn’t mean they have the power that goes along with the name.”

    I have no idea what you mean by that unless you’re comparing the “State of Illinois” with the “State of Iran” (in which case “State” would be a misnomer because technically Iran is a country), because the states in the U.S. certainly DO have power that is permitted by not dictated by the Federal government.

    States establish their own police forces, establish their own standards regarding things like education, health care, taxation, etc. They pass their own laws and regulations (and unless they’re determined to be unconstitutional, the Federal government has no say in the matter).

    For example, the State of Indiana can ban smoking in ALL public places. The State of Illinois may choose not to ban smoking in all public places. The State of Indiana can establish a sales tax of 8%, while the State of Illinois can establish a sales tax of 12%. The Federal government has no say in these matters, the people of the particular states do. While they are not “independent” (we ARE a Republic, after all), states certainly DO have power that goes along with the name “state,” and they exercise that power regularly.

    Now it doesn’t mean that they can just decide to secede (NOT suceed) from the Union or go against the U.S. Constitution – we certainly established that precedent during the Civil War.

    And also – NO – I can’t imagine in today’s United States a situation like Florida or Montana attempting to secede from the Union (like Quebec apparently tried re: Canada 14 years ago as you say). I don’t know Canadian history, so I won’t claim to – but it’s my understanding that Quebec is very heavily French influenced even to this day, whereas the rest of Candada is predominantly English influenced. I know that is an oversimplification, but I’m just trying to make the point that you don’t have that kind of situation with states in the United States in relation to the Country as a whole like you did with the Province of Quebec in relation to Canada as a whole.

    The Constitution may have been written over 225 years ago, but the principles it established of states rights still apply. Yes we need a strong, federal government, but not one that is larger than it needs to be.

  20. As an anarchist, I go with what Justin Raimondo calls the Democrats and Republicans: “The War Party”.