[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: How to hate the government (click to view)
Date: February 24, 2010
"Government = bad" seems to be the main mantra of the American conservative movement these days. It's a message we saw repeated again and again at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, and it's the one consistent note of the otherwise fairly incoherent Tea Party movement. Republicans, sensing the direction the winds are blowing, have tried to co-opt as much of the anti-government tide as possible, hoping to cruise to victory in November by making "government vs. freedom" the crux of all talking points.

The problem, though, is that not all anti-government agendas are created equal. There's the mainstream, beltway Republican style of anti-government activism, pushing for lower taxes and less regulation and the like, but then there's also the kook style, going on about the NWO and martial law and the Bilderberg group all the other nonsense that thrives in the shadier corners of the internet. There is evidence that the lines between respectable anti-government and kook anti-government are becoming increasingly blurred in the modern discourse, due in part to the uncritical legitimacy a lot in the former camp are offering the latter, for strategic, short-term partisan reasons.

Scott Brown, for instance, made some statements recently that treaded dangerously close to expressing sympathy for the crazed lunatic who flew his plane into the IRS last week, talking about the legitimate mood of frustration sweeping the country. Then you have people like Debra Medina, the Tea Party-endorsed Republican candidate in the Texas gubernatorial primary, who have gone on record expressing calculated doubt in the "real story" of the 9-11 attacks. And of course Sarah Palin famously gave the keynote address at a recent activist conference that, among others, featured speakers raising all sorts of conspiratorial junk about Obama's birthplace and religion.

You probably have examples of your own. Or not. Talk about it in the forums by clicking on the link below.

[Ombrageux]

I don't know that Republican anti-government sentiment has ever been "respectable". It always been a shtick used to get elected and thrown away when in power. This reality was hidden during the Reagan and Clinton years because the Republicans either held only the executive or the legislature. It came into full view during the Bush II years.

Today, we still find its hypocritical use, particularly in the healthcare "debate". The Republicans out of good humanitarian concern, we are told, attack the Democrats for wishing to cut government-run Medicare, yet the Republicans say State-run healthcare institutions inherently don't work, it follows they have wet dreams about destroying Medicare completely.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The smaller government movement in America is shtick. The room to manouver in the American budget is very small. You can't cut Social Secutity and that. The Wikipedia entry "United States of America" gives adequate details on this.

The posts above relate to this. It's good to see.

[Psudo]

It's not shtick to the voters.

Also, you can't cut Social Security because there's a law against it. But these guys write the laws. They can edit the impossibility out of it, leaving mere implausibility.

Even if no particular program can be cut, small government advocates can achieve successes by opposing new government spending programs (such as the health care bill or cap-and-trade).

There are things that could be done, and a class of voters who vote for it. Ideological divisions and traditional civics make such change hard, but not impossible.

In other news, I love the art style in this one.

[GreenTiger]

It's not that we hate the government we are just tired of churn of BS Churn going on in the US Congress. They can churn BS anyway the want to there is no way it is going to turn into creamy butter.


We elect them to solve problems, not to grandstand for "party cohesion", Campaign for reelection or get into a national pissing contest. We want them to to do what they were elected to do and they are not doing it.

I would like to see every incumbent to lose and be replaced by people who want to solve problems and not a projection of the Three Stooges that we have now.

[ASLplease]

i have natural dislike for anyone with their hand out that doesnt know when to stop.

[PostFactum]

I believe in government and human rights
Believe in water nymphs,
in fayes believe, in aliens!

[andyt]

Quote:

GOP's "small government" talk is hollow

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/zelizer.small.government/index.html

Quote:

Fifty years of American history have shown that even the party that traditionally advocates small government on the campaign trail opts for big government when it gets into power. The rhetoric of small government has helped Republicans attract some support in the past, but it is hard to take such rhetoric seriously given the historical record -- and it is a now a question whether this rhetoric is even appealing since many Americans want government to help them cope with the current crisis.

[BartSimpson]

ASLplease wrote:

I have (a) natural dislike for anyone with their hand out that doesnt know when to stop.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

ASLplease wrote:

I have (a) natural dislike for anyone with their hand out that doesnt know when to stop.

The thing is, that's all of us. The middle class is the largest recipient of govt programs. The rich might pay more in taxes than they collect in govt programs, but they have their hand out to the govt in other ways - eg Wall street bailout, favorable legislation etc.

Until you send your kids to private school that gets no funding from govt (do they have those?), don't use the roads, health care, police, fire, military, plan to give back your govt pension, etc etc, you can't really talk about not having your hand out. And do you really want to live in a system where none of those things exist?

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

The thing is, that's all of us. The middle class is the largest recipient of govt programs. The rich might pay more in taxes than they collect in govt programs, but they have their hand out to the govt in other ways - eg Wall street bailout, favorable legislation etc.

The Wall Street bailout shored up the values of 401(k) retirement programs and the portfolios of pension funds and life insurance companies (which are often used as retirement vehicles). It is true that millions of annuitants could have been rendered penniless by a market collapse.

andyt wrote:

Until you send your kids to private school that gets no funding from govt (do they have those?), don't use the roads, health care, police, fire, military, plan to give back your govt pension, etc etc, you can't really talk about not having your hand out. And do you really want to live in a system where none of those things exist?

Government in the USA (up until FDR) was needed for doing those things that individuals or companies could not do on their own. Like for having a military, police, roads, dams, and etc.

In the 1930's it was decided that government would reach into areas it had previously stayed out of. Mandatory public education was introduced in this period. Since that time people now expect the government to get them out of all sorts of personal messes. Me, I'd prefer to be left alone to fail, if that happens.

Oh, and there is ONE school in the USA that takes no Federal or state money at all: Hillsdale College.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

In the 1930's it was decided that government would reach into areas it had previously stayed out of. Mandatory public education was introduced in this period. Since that time people now expect the government to get them out of all sorts of personal messes. Me, I'd prefer to be left alone to fail, if that happens.

Can you point to one modern, successful society that still goes by that pre 30's model. And if one exists, would you want to live there?

[commanderkai]

I believe a majority, even the more partisan parts of the right wing in the United States favour "minimal" government, and not government free state. Government will always have a purpose, but a large, burdensome, complex government, to many conservatives, including myself, is wasteful, and at times dangerous.

Strangely enough, I because one of Tom Clancy's novels expressed something that I'd favour completely. Rewriting the tax laws to make them completely straightforward, without any loopholes, rebates, or refunds at all. It's a smaller rate, but since there are no rebates or loopholes, all individuals must pay, including those who skirt off by writing off everything they can think of, or any other loophole you can think of.

Another book, "Parliament of Whores" by P.J. O'Rourke is another idea, which basically says to cut 10% of the budgets for every department to make them leaner and financially better off.

The problem is, of course, is that:

A) The United States isn't in a snow globe, which means external factors (wars, disasters, terrorism) can cause issues with spending. Bush II faced this with 9-11 and the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hurricane Katrina is another example of an unknown factor affecting spending.

B) Partisan/Public outcry. Republicans are politicians. Any attempt to cut any social program will begin cries of racism and bigotry by Democrats and various special interests groups against the Republicans. Public pressure will make them melt. The Democrats, even when faced by public pressure (polls, of course, mean nothing, but even then, they're against the Dems on their health care bill...but like I said, they mean nothing) haven't attempted to significantly change their course, so this MIGHT lead to Republicans not giving a damn about public pressure the next time they're in control of the US government. But this issue does exist, because it's hard to get off an addiction of government support once you're on it.

C) They're Politicians. Pork Barrel projects sadly will always exist, because everybody wants more money in their community. If a politician doesn't bring bacon to the community's table, the community doesn't like said politician. If that politician does bring bacon, they get reelected, because that's how people are. People rally against pork in the general sense, like hearing about research grants for the causes of ass scratching, or something similarly stupid, but if that research grant adds jobs to a local university or research centre, people will stay quiet.

I'm sure there are others, but I'm starved.

[andyt]

commanderkai wrote:

I believe a majority, even the more partisan parts of the right wing in the United States favour "minimal" government, and not government free state. Government will always have a purpose, but a large, burdensome, complex government, to many conservatives, including myself, is wasteful, and at times dangerous.

Strangely enough, I because one of Tom Clancy's novels expressed something that I'd favour completely. Rewriting the tax laws to make them completely straightforward, without any loopholes, rebates, or refunds at all. It's a smaller rate, but since there are no rebates or loopholes, all individuals must pay, including those who skirt off by writing off everything they can think of, or any other loophole you can think of.

Another book, "Parliament of Whores" by P.J. O'Rourke is another idea, which basically says to cut 10% of the budgets for every department to make them leaner and financially better off.

The problem is, of course, is that:

A) The United States isn't in a snow globe, which means external factors (wars, disasters, terrorism) can cause issues with spending. Bush II faced this with 9-11 and the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hurricane Katrina is another example of an unknown factor affecting spending.

B) Partisan/Public outcry. Republicans are politicians. Any attempt to cut any social program will begin cries of racism and bigotry by Democrats and various special interests groups against the Republicans. Public pressure will make them melt. The Democrats, even when faced by public pressure (polls, of course, mean nothing, but even then, they're against the Dems on their health care bill...but like I said, they mean nothing) haven't attempted to significantly change their course, so this MIGHT lead to Republicans not giving a damn about public pressure the next time they're in control of the US government. But this issue does exist, because it's hard to get off an addiction of government support once you're on it.

C) They're Politicians. Pork Barrel projects sadly will always exist, because everybody wants more money in their community. If a politician doesn't bring bacon to the community's table, the community doesn't like said politician. If that politician does bring bacon, they get reelected, because that's how people are. People rally against pork in the general sense, like hearing about research grants for the causes of ass scratching, or something similarly stupid, but if that research grant adds jobs to a local university or research centre, people will stay quiet.

I'm sure there are others, but I'm starved.

They favor minimal govt for other people, but max govt for their own entitlements. I don't see Republicons striving to end say agricultural subsidies. As for your point B - that's summed up by "keep your government hands off my medicare." There is no real popular pressure to reduce spending, just to reduce it for the other guy. Preferably for all those welfare cheating black people. That's just a wet dream, there's little reality to it.

As you sum it up in point C - it's all about bringing home the bacon, but complaining about the other guy's bacon. Unless that changes (doubt it) small government will just be empty rhetoric to get votes from dumbasses.

I would love to see the Teabaggers assume power. (They'd better be quick about it, whitey don't have much time left). I could stand on my balcony, play my violin and watch the flames over the border. Unfortunately those flames wouldn't stop at the border. we'd crash and burn along with them.

As for point A - don't you hate those external events like the Iraq war driving up the deficit? Imagine how frugal GWB would have been if Saddam hadn't attacked the US with those WMDs.

Those tax laws - everybody talks about it, nobody does anything, except to shift the loopholes around. Govts aren't going to give up the ability to shape politics and economics with tax policy.

[N_Fiddledog]

You heard what happened yesterday, right? Obama felt he did good at his previous Q&A with Republicans. So he held this Summit where he felt he could further marginalize Republican viewpoint. The problem was, this time the Republicans were ready for him, and they came to the summit prepared.

Turns out when the media is forced to give Republican ideas air time, these guys actually have ideas, and legitimate grievances. Previously we'd only heard them at tea parties, which means the larger public, relying on the MSM were not aware of them. Here's a sample of the sorts of things the tea party people talk about, the rest of America finally heard yesterday.