Gut Rumbles

January 15, 2006

quote of the day

"And that's why Corn and the Democrats don't stand a chance of keeping Alito off the court. The only way to defeat a principled big-government guy is to wage a principled campaign of limited government against him. The Democrats are in no position to even consider such a fight.

The Republicans once were - but haven't been since about 1998."
---stephen Green

Remember Bill Clinton's 1996 State of the Union speech? You know--- the one where he bit his lower lip, summoned tears of sincerity to his eyes and lied his ass off, saying "The era of big government is OVER?" Well, I have decided that he wasn't lying at all, even though he thought he was.

The era of BIG government IS over. In its place we now have HUMONGOUS, STEROID-ENHANCED government that continues to grow, making the days of "big" government look like a Golden Age of Freedom. And NOBODY in politics today seems willing (or able) to slow down this blob-like expansion, let alone stop it.

Hell, who am I kidding? Voters must WANT government to be the Jolly Green Giant towering over the Valley of Peons; otherwise, they wouldn't keep electing the same big-government assholes to office time after time. (Of course, SOME voters may be like me: naive enough to believe that electing George Bush and a Republican congress might change things. That idea proved to be absolutely ludicrous.)

I've reached the point now where I may never vote again. I don't believe that who we elect to office matters much anymore. Government is a runaway train highballing down a steep grade, and the brakes burned up years ago. If you cherish your freedom and want government to butt out of your life, you're gonna get screwed, no matter which engineer you choose. Just join the rest of the passengers: stick your hand out, demand something for nothing, and ignore the consequences.

When a wreck is inevitable, relax and enjoy the ride while it lasts.

(UPDATE: Good post here.)

(ANOTHER UPDATE: I wish Wal-mart had the balls to do this, but I doubt that they will, even though "Thirty other state legislatures are said to be lining up to impose similar controls..." What else do you expect now that the era of Big Government is over?)


Interesting argument. I like Quick but he misses a big point. The collusion between the capitalists and the political class. Captialists like to talk about a smaller government but what they really mean is they want a gov't that protects them from competition and fails to protect the working class from their excesses in their endless acquistion of wealth. I call it the "I got mine so screw you if you didn't get yours" mentality of big business.

The best illustration of that is in the these tax breaks for millionaires that supposedly jumped us into this current "booming economy." It's only booming on paper. The average American is not better off than they were 5 years ago in terms of real income.

In short. You give the capitalists a lot of money to spend with these breaks, but they don't spend it. How many Mercedes can you drive at once? They keep it for themselves, they travel to exotic locations with it and invest in foreign curriencies. It doesn't really trickle down to the working man. You give the working man the same tax breaks, and it's immediately put back into the US economy. They pay their bills off, they buy clothes for their kids, maybe replace an aging junk car. The money trickles back up into the system and everyone's quality of life benefits -- not just the owners.

Posted by: Libby on January 15, 2006 02:18 PM

Never give up; pvc those AR15s; and when they come for you, go down fighting. Yes, I am paranoid and if you had worked for the govt. for 23 years, you would be too.

Posted by: maxnnr on January 15, 2006 02:35 PM


Step back and think . . .

Who employs the working man?

Tax breaks? Are they not the government giving back what never truly belonged to the government?

The collusion between "capitalists" (interesting you use that term that way), and politicians could be thwarted if the average voter could think beyond the capacity of a cantalope and refuse to return such idiots to political office.

Or--just do not buy anything from capitalists or corporations. Be true to your philosophy, whatever it is. And don't send money to politicians (that includes taxes), because they will just give it to capitalists to buy their new Mercedes and lay off all the help.

Quick and Gut are running circles around the opposing view here, and in other threads.


Posted by: jb on January 15, 2006 10:09 PM

Sorry Libby. I live in a place with lots of big money types. I happen to be living in a house and driving a car paid for by those despicable tax breaks. And so are the people working for me.....all in all about 30.

They may travel,(gee, isn't it awful the way those rich folk buy food for the "small" folks working in those distant and less fortunate countries?.) and oh, yeah isn't it screwed up for them to buy foreign currencies, so those people in those "other " countries can buy U.S.goods?

Yeah, life sucks don't it?

Posted by: Wes Jackson on January 16, 2006 02:08 AM

Don't get your shorts in a twist Wes. I got nothing against rich people. Some of my best friends are millionaires and I spend my money on overseas travel too. I'm taking about multinational megaliths here.

You got 30 people working for you, I'm guessing you gross between 15-30 mill a year in business and you know your people by name and treat them decently. Capitalism at its best. That's a long way from the Waltons and their slave yards.

But that's not the point anyway. As a practical measure, and this is well documented, real income for the working class has fallen while cost of living is going up. I'm not saying guys like you don't deserve a tax break too, but the tax amnesty for overseas profits in which the megacorps brought back billions and then used to buy back their own stock , just as an example, benefitted only the megacorps -- not the total economy.

It's not meant to be insulting, it's seems to me to be common sense that poor people need more stuff so they're more likely to pump the money right back into the economy than someone who doesn't worry about how they're going to pay their bills from month to month.

Like I said, it would still stimulate growth but it would trickle up, instead of down and who can afford to wait longer for some extra money -- you or some schmuck making $20,000 a year?

Posted by: Libby on January 16, 2006 08:23 AM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.