Republicans Come Out Swinging For The 1% In State Of The Union Responses

In last night’s State of The Union speech, President Barack Obama finally got it together to start proposing some of the things the American people thought they voted him in to do in the first place. He detailed his plan to offer free community college, to raise taxes on the rich to pay for childcare, and tax cuts for everyone else.

The GOP was not pleased.

While the official response from hog castratin’ Senator Joni Ernst was as vague as it was confusing and unwatchable, many other Republican legislators and presidential hopefuls offered their takes as well. It’s hard to specifically come right out and say that they vastly prefer it when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, so a lot of them found ways around it.

Jeb Bush wrote (emphasis mine):

“We need to create economic opportunity for every American, especially middle class families and those trying to rise out of poverty. While the sluggish recovery has been good for some, far too many people have been left behind. It’s unfortunate President Obama wants to use the tax code to divide us—instead of proposing reforms to create economic opportunity for every American. We can do better. My friend Joni Ernst offered a great contrast, outlining a positive, conservative vision for reform. I hope President Obama will be mindful of the strong message American voters sent in November and will work with our new Congressional majority on achieving solutions we know have broad-based appeal.”

OH. Using the tax code to “divide us” huh? Welp. It already does! Warren Buffet famously pointed out that he pays a much lower tax rate than his secretary, and that is pretty much the norm. I’m going to go ahead and say it’s a little more “divisive” to expect the rich to pay a smaller portion of their income in taxes than the rest of us do. I’m also going to say that a conservative vision that lets the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is also more divisive.

Pretending that I have the same interests as the mega-rich is not going to improve my economic situation any more than pretending I have straight blond hair is going to turn me into Christie Brinkley. I don’t. Most people don’t! And they probably never, ever will. Especially not with a system that is specifically designed to make sure they don’t.

Mitt Romney also offered a similar take in a Facebook post:

“True to form, the President in his State of the Union speech is more interested in politics than in leadership. More intent on winning elections than on winning progress, he ignores the fact that the country has elected a Congress that favors smaller government and lower taxes. Rather than bridging the gap between the parties, he makes “bridge to nowhere” proposals. Disappointing. A missed opportunity to lead. His tax proposal is a maze of new taxes and complexities. The best way to lower the tax burden on all American families is straightforward: lower rates and simplify the tax code.”

I was wondering what dear old Mitt was going to say, given that President Obama has actually accomplished everything that he said he was going to do by the end of his “first term” as president. This is not surprising!

See, the thing is–President Obama is lowering taxes. Just not for you, Mitt Romney. He’s lowering taxes for the middle class. No offense, but when people get to Mitt Romney levels of rich, them having more money doesn’t help the economy or anyone. Having more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime does not help our economy, because that money is then just staying in your bank account and not doing anything for anyone. It’s not building businesses, it’s not paying people, it’s not buying anything from anyone. It’s just there. Chilling.  I don’t blame you for liking it, but I literally see no good reason for you to pay a lower tax rate than I do so that you can simply enjoy having it.

Bobby Jindal apparently has psychic abilities, but lacks the ability to differentiate hominems.

Mike Huckabee blamed Beyoncé for everything. OK, maybe not. He said some dumb stuff too, though.

“There are two things certain about the Obama administration—debt and taxes. I’m not surprised that in this State of the Union address, President Obama will introduce another plan for more taxes. After growing our national debt by $7.5 trillion dollars since taking office, it’s ridiculous for the president to propose $320 billion dollars in new taxes.”

YEP. I still don’t care. Look at me not caring, Mike Huckabee! I am totally, 100% fine with stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Because it’s the opposite of that that is killing our country. The rich steal labor on the cheap, they steal overtime from their workers, and — I’m sorry — but anyone who is rich enough to be getting taxed more with these new proposals has definitely screwed some people on the way up the ladder. So, yeah, I don’t feel that badly for them. We’re not on the same time, and we never have been.

Ted Cruz, unsurprisingly, f-d up his response on the first go, accidentally posted it, and then deleted that and posted a new one. He seems essentially confused about everything, and whined a bunch about how it wasn’t fair that the President say anything about “radical Islamic terrorism,” but is also reasonably sure that the way to economic prosperity for us all is lowering taxes on the rich. Which, sorry, it doesn’t.

The Republican path to “prosperity” only works for a very small amount of people, and those people are very rich. They are the people who don’t want to be forced to “regulate” their business to make them safer for all of us, they are the people who don’t need help with college tuition, health care or child care, who don’t want to pay their workers more than the current minimum wage because they want to save that money for themselves. I am tired of hearing them tell poor people to just suck it up, deal with their misery and pull themselves up by their boot straps. They’re the ones who need to suck it up now. Sorry. [Bloomberg]