Many factual innaccuracies in your post:

"He can no longer hold his seat as a republican because of the state of the republican party."

Not true - he can't hold it because he was going to get whipped big time in the primary by Pat Toomey. He still will, in the general election.

"Why is it the republicans fault, all this economical turmoil?

It's not. It is largely the fault of government and in particular those (democrats) who shoved the community reinvestment act policies down the throats of lenders, and the Clinton holdovers who held the CEO positions of Fannie and Fredddie and ran them into the ground all the while taking tens of millions in unearned compensation and paying off Dodd/Frank/Obama in the form of massive campaign contributions to look the other way.

"Those tax cuts by the republicans contributed to a lot of this."

Tax cuts, and specifically tax rate cuts, provide incentives and growth which is how you generate incremental tax revenues and eventually grow your way out of deficits, unless you are Obama/Pelosi/Reid and you then squander even trillions more.

"much less money coming in from tax revenue because of tax cuts (that mainly benefited the rich) and a marked decrease in jobs"

Completely false, the treasury has taken in more tax revenue every year for decades. When you cut tax rates, all taxpayers benefit, not just the rich. Moreover the rich then have an incentive to risk capital which provides more jobs for the non-rich, and the non-rich have a chance to then begin moving up the economic ladder. Happens every time we cut tax rates. As for jobs, millions were created under Bush; but since the dems took control of congress two years ago, look at what has happened.

Sorry to break your bubble. I am often amazed at what is spewed by those who might otherwise be considered reasonably intelligent.