Clint Eastwood Gets It

Written by Michael Rebmann on October 28, 2011 – 8:58 pm -

“I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War,” he told GQ. “And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let’s spend a little more time leaving everybody alone.”

The whole story.


Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Comments »

29 Comments to “Clint Eastwood Gets It”

  1. Michael OstrowskiNo Gravatar Says:

    A simple, common sense philosophy well stated.

  2. Tony MatuszakNo Gravatar Says:

    How about an Paul endorsement from him.

  3. Robert GlissonNo Gravatar Says:

    The problem is that ‘No, he doesn’t get it either.’ He and the Republicans and Democrats and who knows how many people are arguing over a non-issue. There is no one stopping anyone from living together as a couple and calling it whatever they want. What it comes down to is “What do I get out of it?” If two people are “Married” they then get the marriage deductions in their tax. The spouse can draw on the other spouse’s social security when one dies. The spouse can visit the other spouse at the hospital. In other words, it comes down to who gets the money? Tax Law- change the ‘civil union benefits to equal the ‘marriage benefits’ and it becomes a matter of semantics; except in the states which refuse to accept civil unions and brings in Federal meddlers. However, since we are talking about Federal Tax and Social Security anyway, it only requires the same legal sanction of a civil partnership that is recognized by the feds.

    In our tax code, we have the ‘deductions’ of which, the government assumes we pay a percentage of our earnings in ‘tithe’ and therefore we have to show that we have paid over the tithe in order to deduct ‘gifts.’ A non-tithing person receives that deduction anyway as a personal deduction. So the tax code is not necessarily a fair code anyway.

    Being a ‘Libertarian’ I would just as soon throw out the personal Income tax and government’s involvement in marriage anyway; however, the issue of marriage is one that is none of the governments business and should only be a concern of tax law with a civil union contract (that’s what they are to the government anyway) Churches can retain all of their traditions as they always have. Basically outside of the tax thing, that’s the way marriage is done today anyway. Sorry to take so much space; but, I’ve gotten so tired of the short soundbite of accusation verses accusation that I had to write my opinion out of frustration with the world’s lack of common sense.

  4. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    Last week the cable teevee brought us a couple of enlightening interviews with prominent libertarians: Jon Stewart hosted Andrew Napalitano and Bill Maher sat down with Grover Norquist.

    Most revealing were the questions the guests refused to answer: Stewart asked, if the magic free market hand-picks the winners and losers, what exactly do we do with the losers? This question remains unanswered. Maher asked Norquist, at what point does income inequality actually become a problem? We still don’t know Grover’s answer.

    This is a general problem with all fringe ideologies, not only libertarianism: how are these solutions implemented to the benefit of society, not its detriment?

    It seems that extremist right-wing ideologues have a solution to dealing with inconvenient questions: simply pretend you didn’t hear them.

  5. James OstrowskiNo Gravatar Says:

    What do we do with the losers? Are they our property?

    They are losers because of the free choices of the 7 billion people on the planet so I guess your response is to shoot the 7 billion or something?

    As for Norquist as liberatarian, that’s a dubious proposition. He’s a GOP operative in my casual observation.

  6. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    Guess we don’t know your answer either, other than a straw man construct. Who’s advocating shooting anyone?

    Either Galtian Paradise resembles a cross between Mad Max and Oliver Twist or there’s a better way that the Randians haven’t told us about.

    “Drown gubmit in a bathtub” sounds rather Galt.

  7. RayNo Gravatar Says:

    “what exactly do we do with the losers?” is a stupid question. It assumes a collectivist mindset that we are all the property of this imaginary entity called society represented by that supreme master of collectivists, the state.
    Isn’t it interesting that the solutions to all problems as viewed in all Progressive ideologies requires the commission of a heinous crime, if shooting is out of the question then outright the robbery of innocent victims to prop up the favored “losers” of the political class seems much more palatable and humane.
    And Bbill, spare us your inane imagery of such things as Mad Max and Oliver Twist having something to do with libertarianism. If you looked in the mirror and viewed what your kind has wrought just over the last century, you’d see more death and poverty than you could stomach, but you can’t look, can you? Or you just pretend you don’t see them.

  8. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    Guess we don’t know Ray’s answer either.

    How about the other question, at what point does income inequality become a problem? There’s one to avoid also too!

    Gotta give Napolitano credit for one thing: he’s an affable gent with a sense of humor. He defies the norm by showing that one can be libertarian and not necessarily forfeit congeniality.

  9. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    Anyone else agree that society is “imaginary”? That thinking sure sheds light on the mindset that says the cast of “Jersey Shore” is better for … um … society than teachers. After all, Snooki’s a millionaire.

  10. Robert GlissonNo Gravatar Says:

    I see the subject has changed to Jon Stewart and Bill Maher and the idea that the free market has winners and losers. At this time the only free market is a flea market. There are no winners or losers at a garage sale, just buyers and sellers. There is no free market elsewhere; because, government is involved in all the other markets so the word free is a misnomer. Governments are the ones who have wars with winners and losers; the question is not which market determines the winners and losers but which government and how it treats its ‘market’ that determines ‘winners and losers’ The US has trade agreements with other countries, that determine what products and how they come into and out of the countries that effect supply and demand. Stewart and Maher asked questions that pertained to a “Trade War” with winners and losers and not “Free Trade” which is the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Stewart and Maher are professionals at twisting subjects, that’s their business.

  11. RayNo Gravatar Says:

    I’ve never seen “Jersy Shore”, and don’t care to either, therefore I don’t see how I could have contributed to Snooki’s riches. Other people…well that’s their business. That’s how the free market works, free to associate or not.
    Teachers on the other hand outside of private schools are part of the political class, forcing me to pay them regardless of whether I need them or not, whether they are a benefit to my family or not.

  12. Michael RebmannNo Gravatar Says:

    Bbill, I guess you favor the current system that perpetuates, creates and traps losers into a tax-supported lifestyle that eliminates opportunities for people. The government (politicians) have created quite the dependency class that is showered with other people’s money while being bribed to vote for the ruling class.

  13. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    Robert Nozick gets it.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_dilettante/2011/06/the_liberty_scam.single.html

  14. Robert GlissonNo Gravatar Says:

    Bbill-
    Yes Robert Nozick may “get it” BUT you and the writer of the article don’t. The article spots a flea speck and claims that the flea speck is a insurmountable mountain and all the Libertarian economists were corrupted by corporations as well so therefore Liberalism is triumphant. That might work on Bill Maher’s show but, it will not play on a Libertarian website where the readers are expected to use their minds instead of follow the laugh track. The common theme is that people can work out things between themselves, they do not need government to enforce things. And we can argue minor examples right and left daily; however, if you just stop and look at the simple fact that today’s modern man is more a slave to the government of this country than the man of 1910. Granted that today’s slave is better off materially due to the improvements of technology than the freer man was. However, financially, he is in no better position because the country’s money supply has been devalued to the point that where a loaf of bread cost a penny, it costs two fifty so nothing has changed; but, this country is fifteen trillion of 2011 dollars in debt, businesses are being forced to leave the country to survive and a man can’t smoke a cigarette in peace. That is the point.

  15. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    If Liberalism were triumphant we wouldn’t have such extreme wealth disparity and we wouldn’t have ridiculous debt / deficits (as the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest and the Iraq War – the two largest drivers of our debt – wouldn’t have happened). If anyone triumphed, it was the Kochs and their corporate / media stooges, hardly an oasis of liberalism.

    OOPS http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/30/fiscal-conservatives-with-a-taste-for-pork-ron-paul.html

  16. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    Caveat: that should have read “the two largest drivers of our deficit“. Mea culpa.

  17. Robert GlissonNo Gravatar Says:

    Bbill:
    You miss the whole point. The major difference between Liberalism and Libertarianism is the “freedom of the individual” Libertarian’s believe that people are individuals and that they should be allowed to live as free individuals. Liberalism is a dictatorship obsessed with the concept that all mommy government’s children are equal, therefore they must separate all economic differences, blend every aspect of society to the same level and consistency. Part of that is your references to “wealth disparity” If you bankrupted every person in this country that had over a million 2011 dollars, it wouldn’t even pay half of one month’s worth of the interest on the national debt. In other words, the tax game is nothing more than a way to make everyone as poor as everyone else, more human mass or mud. Bush was and is a Liberal, so was his father and no, Clinton didn’t balance the budget with his taxes either. Taxing social security did not save the country. The fact is for the last thirty or more years this country has been increasing the size of its government, increasing its debt, and increasing its laws regulating business and individuals at a higher pace than any time in history and we are going downhill rapidly. We didn’t increase the debt ceiling by billions because a few people saved ten percent on their taxes. You better take a closer look at your religion. “Faith is the belief in what is unseen” and you sure aren’t seeing the real world around you.

  18. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    Liberalism is a dictatorship obsessed with the concept that all mommy government’s children are equal, therefore they must separate all economic differences, blend every aspect of society to the same level and consistency.

    LOL

  19. Michael RebmannNo Gravatar Says:

    Wealth disparity isn’t a problem, it has always existed and always will. The problem is state-corporatism that picks winners and losers, squanders tax payer money in the process, and government that has consumed the economic resources of our country to the point that opportunities are severely limited.

    Poor people are living better than ever, there are more of them, yet the ability for them to improve their lot in life has been taken away by the same government that supports them.

    The money being spent on government assistance to people and businesses is money that is no longer available for real job creation. If you took the amount of money paid annually for personal income tax and reduced that figure by half (it needs to be reduced even more) the resultant natural stimulus to the economy would be far more beneficial than any government created stimulus.

  20. RayNo Gravatar Says:

    Let me get the Bbill progressive logic straight…Bush tax cuts and the Irag war are the major drivers of debt?
    I thought spending more than what you have is the driver of debt…period! Even if we assume that tax cuts would deprive the blessed federal oligarchs of more loot to spend, where is the historical evidence that giving them more to spend has ever stopped them from spending even more than what they have taken in?

    “Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the presidential candidate and libertarian champion, is relentless in calling for the shrinking of government spending while seeking tax dollars for his district from some of the very programs he criticizes.”

    Another tired old smear against Ron Paul by those who either don’t understand the corrupt federal appropriations process or are just smear artists trying to influence those who don’t understand the corrupt federal appropriations process.
    Along the same line of questioning—where has not requesting an earmark for your congressional district ever stopped the feds from spending that money appropriated for that program anyway?

  21. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    Wealth disparity isn’t a problem, it has always existed and always will.

    Good Lord. Are you saying that it’s not a problem regardless of degree? If the top one percent’s grip on our country’s resources gets to China / India / Mexico / US pre- Great Depression levels it’s okay?

    Is there ever a point where it may become problematic? Should our Galtian Overlords control 30 percent? 50? All of it? And from whom do you suppose does this gross redistribution of wealth come from?

    If there’s a fly in the room there’s no problem. If there are a gazillion flies in the room there’s a problem.

    For a nation to function it has to have a vital middle class. It’s kind of embarrassing to have to point that out.

  22. Robert GlissonNo Gravatar Says:

    Bbill “Is there ever a point where it may become problematic? Should our Galtian Overlords control 30 percent? 50? All of it? And from whom do you suppose does this gross redistribution of wealth come from?” Ho-ray, I was beginning to think the fence post in my back yard was more intelligent. Congratulations, you finely figured it out that the government keeps getting bigger and bigger, sucking money out of everyone and everything it can beg, borrow and steal from. It’s got all it can from the poor and middle class and now thinks its big enough to steal from the only ones that still have anything. Those that covet are never satisfied you know. Glad you came to your senses. Lots of luck in your next robin hood endeavor.

  23. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    It’s finally, not finely.

    And if the top one percent’s share goes from 10 percent in the late 70s to 25 percent in the late 00s, the money’s going somewhere and it ain’t the gubmit.

    The Fox “News” talking point generator says “it’s a spending problem” where more accurately it’s a hoarding problem. But Glenn Beck won’t tell you that.

  24. Robert GlissonNo Gravatar Says:

    Sorry, I guess I was wrong, your justification for theft is stronger than reason. I own my home, took me almost twenty years of monthly payments to do it. (20K at 169 a month) There is a homeless shelter not much more than a mile away. We send them fifty a month. Now since I’m only sending them some money and not sharing my home or the the savings in my bank account; that gives you the right to say that I am hoarding. Same thing on a smaller scale than the well to do. You have never accepted the comments by other commentators or myself or your own reference to Fox and Glenn Beck that the government which has doubled and a half, prints its own money, borrows from every nation that will float a loan and spends freely is the problem. That tells me that you must be one of the must be one of the government overlords trying to justify the coming theft attempt.

  25. Robert GlissonNo Gravatar Says:

    Sorry to write “you must be of” twice. Should have proofread.

  26. Michael RebmannNo Gravatar Says:

    Wealthy people spend money and invest money, creating opportunities for people in the process. Government takes money, gives money away strategically to keep themselves in power, and reduces the amount of money for spending and investment. The overhead alone for inefficient government programs (handouts) is a job killer, unless you are part of the political class.

    Perhaps you should think about the correlation between the distribution of wealth and the percentage of people, and companies, receiving government support. $14 trillion in debt is not good, no matter how you try to spin it.

  27. RayNo Gravatar Says:

    Robert, we all know that debating with a collectivist, whether the leftist kind or the right wing neocon type is pretty much like pissing in the wind. Since many of us here have years of experience at it, we all know the common tactics used by our opponents who hold on fiercly to their ideological world view regardless of the evidence against them.
    Bill illustrates two such tactics repeatedly:
    1: When faced with an uncomfortable question typically about a subject you brought up in the first place but know little or nothing about in reality, pretend your opponent never asked the question and change the subject.
    2: Present your case with some statistic and point out some evil that the statistic illustrates, then blame it on somebody and demand the government do something about it. (Interestingly enough, the evil they decry was usually caused by something the government did in the past to fix the same evil, but made it worse—but liberals can’t think about or admit the failure of their own policies, so they blindly ask for more of the same.)

  28. Robert GlissonNo Gravatar Says:

    True Ray; and the old saw about ‘trying to teach a pig to sing; only drives you to distraction while annoying the pig’ is also true. I didn’t expect to teach anything to a closed mind; I just needed a distraction for the last couple of days.

  29. BbillNo Gravatar Says:

    Wealthy people spend money and invest money, creating opportunities for people in the process.

    In theory. Or more accurately, in India.

    Lotta projection around these here parts!

Leave a Comment

RSS