Jon Stewart Slams The New Ideas Republicans Have For 2016: “It’s The Exact Same F*cking Thing!” (Video)

jon-stewart-2016-republicansIt never ceases to amaze me how conservatives continue to still buy into Republican economic rhetoric. It’s literally the same crap year after year, decade after decade. Their entire economic ideology rests upon tax cuts and deregulation. While economics is far from a simple subject, the fact that demand is the leading driver behind almost all job creation really isn’t. If there’s demand for a product or service, there will be a company out there providing that product or service. If that company (or even an individual) can’t meet the demand for their product or service, their business will either suffer (because another company or person will), or they’ll have to grow (create jobs) in order to satisfy demand. As long as there’s money to be made, there will be companies out there trying to make it whether their tax rate is 35 percent or 45 percent. Because the truth is, while $500 million might be less than $800 million – it’s still better than no million.


If you want to see what too much deregulation (or proper enforcement of regulation) gets us, look no further than the 2008 economic crash; the fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas; the BP oil spill; or the Elk River chemical spill last year. Greedy companies will get away with whatever they think they can. They don’t care if they destroy our environment, crash our economy or even kill people, just as long as the revenue they make outweighs whatever consequences they might deal with later on.

Nevertheless, none of this glaring reality ever seems to dampen the spirits of Republicans who continually blather on and on about the same old debunked trickle-down economics lies they’ve been using for years.

It’s a point Jon Stewart perfectly hammered last night when covering the comments made by several 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls who seemed rather disgusted at the thought of Mitt Romney once again running for president.

The big push by many of these candidates has been the need for “something new” to drive the GOP ticket in 2016. And, obviously, Romney isn’t anything new. Stewart played several clips of these candidates offering their “new” ideas heading into the next presidential election.

First was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker who championed his “new” idea of – lowering taxes. Next was Rick Perry who ushered in the “new” idea of – deregulation. And finally, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) proclaiming the “new” idea – that we must repeal “Obamacare.”

“See! It’s a complete turnaround from what Mitt Romney with his 47 percent moocher class rhetoric was running on,” said Stewart before playing several clips from Romney’s 2012 campaign where he:

  • Promised to lower taxes.
  • Pushed for deregulation.
  • Promised to repeal “Obamacare” on his first day in office – even though as president he wouldn’t have had the power to do that.

“Oh, it’s the exact same f*cking thing,” he mocked.

“Basically, it’s the Republicans universal cure,” Stewart continued. “It’s like penicillin, if penicillin never cured your chlamydia and just made your doctor really rich.”


And he’s absolutely right. It’s comical that Republicans are trying to act as if “there’s a different GOP coming in 2016” – when they’re running on the same crap they’ve been using for years. Didn’t we just have a tax-cutting, deregulating Republican in the White House from 2000-2008? Remind me again, how did that work out for the U.S.?

Let’s just use some common sense, shall we? For nearly 40 years we’ve been governed under the economic ideological belief of trickle-down economics. The belief that low taxes will give more to the job creators (aka the rich), and that excess will then spill over to the rest of us. And for nearly that exact same amount of time wages in this country for the poor and middle class have been flat, while the richest among us have flourished like never before. Right now, around 42-44 percent of our nation’s wealth is owned by just 1 percent of our population. Exactly how much more do they need before that starts trickling down? And are there really people out there who believe that without regulations businesses would simply choose to act morally and ethically? Because with regulations many don’t, so how would the behavior of these unethical companies (and there are many) improve with fewer regulations?

So as much as Republicans like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Scott Walker are going to act as if 2016 is going to be a “new beginning for the GOP,” the truth lies in exactly what Stewart said. In 2016, the Republican message to voters – is going to be the exact same f*cking thing it was in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992….you get the picture.

Watch the segment below via Comedy Central:



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    And the Dems plan for 2016 (‘we’re gonna take money from other people and give it to you”) is ‘brand F’ing new exciting stuff’ . . . . . . . in what regard?

    • John Duttinger

      Would you kindly explain to me how big oil is trickling down?

      • Jim Bean

        Sure. Its a fair question.

        Despite Obama’s success at stifling oil/gas production by denying drilling permit and lease applications on public land, private industry (Big Oil) found ways to dramatically increase the production of oil and gas from existing leases and permits on private land. These ‘ways’ are in the form of fracking and horizontal drilling.

        Suddenly, the USA became the worlds largest oil producer and was no longer hostage to foreign oil. In order to keep USA dollars flowing into their economies, former energy powerhouses like Saudi Arabia had to reduce prices to capture the sale. This kind of competition always has a snowball effect on prices. When Saudi Arabia lowers prices, so must Venezuela (for example) if they want to stay in the game.

        In 2013, the USA consumed about 369 million gallons of gasoline PER DAY. The competition among the Big Oil players has driven down the price per gallon by a buck fifty at minimum. Consequently, $552 billion dollars PER DAY ‘trickles down’ into the consumers pocket thanks to competition in the Big Oil community.

        FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY (back into the US economy, distributed to EVERY consumer, rich and poor alike.)

        Its worth taking an extra moment to digest that magnitude of that.

      • John Duttinger

        But now it seems like since the Saudis and other opec countries are not slowing their supply to us that US oil companies are fracking horizontal drilling their employees out of jobs.

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        Good.

      • Question: Does the United States get a cut of the pie when oil companies drill on public land? Or do the oil companies just set up shop on the public lands, give lip service to try not to destroy the area and receive subsidies from the government?
        Hmm, I guess I should probably cut off the snarky bit, but that does seem to be what does happen…

      • Jim Bean

        Answer: The oil and gas industry currently supplies $85 million a day (A DAY) in revenue to the U.S. Treasury via income taxes, royalties, rents and other fees. Second, the oil/gas industry is paying its fair share and more with an effective tax rate of 44.6 percent averaged over 2007-2012 – compared to 37.7 percent for retail, 25.6 percent for computer and peripherals and 21.3 percent for pharmaceuticals.

        A better question is: why would we drive the industry away from the public land where we get to share in the profits and over to the private lands where we get less, given that total production will be pretty much the same either way?

      • Pipercat

        Trickles down by not taking it in the first place?

      • Jim Bean

        By not letting the Arabs take it the way Obama wanted to, yes.

      • Pipercat

        That’s completely absurd because trickle down refers to a tax paradigm, not international commodities markets. Meanwhile, this is totally irrelevant to the premise of the
        piece. Plus your math is way off. By your calculations, this would produce 201 trillion dollars of trickle! The entire planet isn’t even worth that much in US dollars.

      • Jim Bean

        From the US Energy Information Administration.

        “{In 2013, about 134.51 billion gallons1 (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline were consumed2 in the United States, a daily average of about 368.51 million gallons (or 8.77 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.35 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007.”

        You do the math. 368 million times $1.50/gal times 365 days per year. The math for me is, we drive about 30k annually at 20/mpg avg = 1500 gallons purchased times $1.50/gal saved equals $2250 take home dollars I get to keep to spend on other things each year. Its a big deal for everyone.

        In Liberal-speak, ‘trickle down’ is simply a theory that means that some of the money earned from private investment filters down to the middle class. Liberals say that never happens and that the only way money from the private sector can reach the middle class is if we elect Democrats to take it from them by force and give it to union members and government workers.

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        Have you even worked a 60 hr. a week job for years and actually listened to how ignorant you sound?

      • Pipercat

        Now you’re just being ad lapidem. There is no liberal-speak term for “trickle down.” Again,
        “trickle down” is a term for what is known as supply side economics. It’s a tax paradigm. What you’re describing are market forces which are driven by supply/demand, cost of goods and nothing more. The cost of goods is what is important here. Your last paragraph is complete nonsense because it’s beyond mere fallacy and is a total falsehood and you know it.

        You also need to make sure you know what you type. The math reference was to this paragraph on your original comment:

        “FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY (back into the US
        economy, distributed to EVERY consumer, rich and poor alike.”

        That also, is absurd.

      • Jim Bean

        How much gasoline does the United States consume?
        In 2013, about 134.51 billion gallons1 (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline were consumed2 in the United States, a daily average of about 368.51 million gallons (or 8.77 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.35 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007

        That is copy/pasted from the US Energy Information Administration. That’s EIA dot gov. Dot gov – as in – these are Obies numbers. Is he absurd?

      • Pipercat

        No Jim you’re absurd. In fact, you’re ad lapidem incarnate! The whole piece was not about gas prices, but about a lyric from a Who song. So you concoct this absurd notion that lower gasoline prices are proof that trickle down works! All in an effort to prove that anybody left of Attila the Hun is absurd in thinking anything other than partisan right wing talking points. Argue to the stone all you wish, but your comments in this thread are complete nonsense.

      • Jim Bean

        Well, I guess that pretty well settles it.

      • Pipercat

        Sure does, just like always. I normally leave you to your fun. Sometimes you outdo yourself however, so I feel I must chime in to keep you honest…

      • Jim Bean

        You’re quite remarkable and spectacular at that.

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        Those “arabs” have made oil cheaper than it has been in years just to show Americans how much we have been screwed by our own Big Oil companies. P.s. Obama has tried to keep you fom drinking poison water. Why……because I wouldn’t have.

    • Weeeeellll…. you arent wrong…. but you arent all that right, either. Dems (so far) dont have a coherent plan. And, IMO havent for years. However “common good” spending has, historically, paved the way for a robust economy and middle class. From the Homestead acts which redistributed wealth from the top to anyone who was willing to work for it, to the canal and rr building, to the interstate system (which literally paved the way for interstate tourism boom of the 60s -80s, not to mention walmart, McDonalds and all other nationwide “chain” stores and all the shipping companies and independant truckers) to the TennValley authority electrifying the rural areas….

      Now, im not a HUGE fan of the “free to students” college plan. 1 it should include trade schools and SPECIFICALLY exclude “for profit” “colleges” and 2: I would like to see some sort of “volunteerism” as a prerequisite… specifically volunteering as an aide or tutor in K-12 schools. This would have 2 benifits A: it would help reinforce and remedially teach the ‘aides’ and B: it would fill some of the gap of “student/teacher ratio”which most studies and educators agree is a VITAL part of a successful education system (we could even extend this to middle and hs students so they could “save” for college/trade school)

      Second idea Jobs Bill to put solar cells on every schoolhouse and public bldng through the “sunbelt” CA, TX, AZ, NM GA, ETC…. with a 60-70% “made in america” requirement which would not only DIRECTLY create jobs, but also lower costs for those districts/towns in the long run

      • Jim Bean

        Thank you first, for your objectivity – something that I regard as the key to any solution. But here’s another article of objectivity that cannot be excluded when formulating plans for dealing with our current economy.

        The success of Homestead Act and TVA was entirely rooted in the fact that we enjoyed a closed economy at the time. They would not have worked in todays global economy where so much of the capital investment would have been bled off by foreign nations.

        The solar idea is good one from an ecological and national security perspective. Economically though, it is a revenue consumer, not a revenue producer and if we want increased long term prosperity, we need increased GDP. That means being prudent with revenue consuming projects like infrastructure and ambitions with revenue producing projects like energy exportation projects and, if possible, resurrecting some manufacturing. Revenue NOT shipped offshore = increased prosperity at home.

      • Firstly, how do you percieve my “solar idea” as a revinue consumer and NOT producer….its a good idea (as you say) from ecological and Natl Sec. Standpoint…. but LONGTERM, it frees up $$$ from those local districts and townships for OTHER uses…. teachers, teachers aides etc…. or lowers the tax needs local economys….

        But MOST of our natl spending on infrastructure have paved the road for more innovation and investment….

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      Proove it. All made up in your world.

  • Courtney Hunter

    @jim bean repubs pla for 2016 (we r gonna take money from blue collar workers and give it to rich 1 % and corporations/other rich people) brandf ing new and exciting ?…………. what regard ?