Spineless, gutless Republicans
Written by James Ostrowski on May 19, 2009 – 6:02 pm -Every Republican in the Senate except for Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Robert Bennett of Utah, Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Thune of South Dakota, voted for a massive increase in government control over the credit card industry today.
What is the point of having two parties if each favors big government?
There are a million ways to help overburdened consumers other than by making government bigger. How about making it smaller and lowering taxes?
This is a classic example of government creating its own demand. Government has bankrupted average people with wars and the welfare state. They then created an inflation bubble leading lenders to loan too much money to people who couldn’t afford it. To solve the problems big government created, government just got a whole lot bigger.
The actual consequences? Fewer people will get less credit and people with good credit will pay more, thus discouraging responsible behavior.
The Obaman march to socialism continues.
Anyone gotta plan?
Posted in Uncategorized |
May 19th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Why presume that there really are two parties when in reality there are not. They serve the same “political class” interests. It’s functionally one party. With the comic implosion of the “Republican party” this new social class (that won’t admit it’s a social class) can’t even keep up the facade of being two parties. It’s a joke on us. So why act and speak and think as if there are two parties? Why even acknowledge them in the terminological language they manufacture other than to refer to the illusions they choose to promulgate for ideological purposes? Jim, I think it is a mistake to presume that a full “frontal assault on the political class,” as you suggest in your 12 point plan, actually makes any sense. That’s what they want. Then you’re forced to play their game, either in the fixed racket of electoral politics or in an actual revolution in which, either way, you would inevitably be crushed. The only solution is to concentrate on reconstituting concrete local power at the community level. Non-reactive, non-confrontive politics is the answer. The political class can only be confronted indirectly. It is a matter of non-participation in their way of life such as neo-imperialist empire building and continuing centralization of finance in mega-banks, etc.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:36 am
“So why act and speak and think as if there are two parties? ”
Ahhhmmm….Larry I think that’s why he refers to them as the “political class”. Political class being an abstraction refering to both dems and repubs and the whole group of folk participating in the state apparatus. Kinda of like chair, table and couch all fit under the abstraction furniture. Jim, am I wrong?
May 20th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Larry, you need to read the speech that explains the plan. I explicitly reject a frontal assault in favor of guerilla tactics.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Yes,”political class” refers to both parties.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Here is Rothbard on the ‘class struggle’:
Interestingly enough, the very Marxian phrase, the “replacement of the government by men by the administration of things,” can be traced, by a circuitous route, from the great French radical laissez-faire liberals of the early nineteenth century, Charles Comte (no relation to Auguste Comte) and Charles Dunoyer. And so, too, may the concept of the “class struggle”; except that for Dunoyer and Comte the inherently antithetical classes were not businessmen versus workers, but the producers in society (including free businessmen, workers, peasants, etc.) versus the exploiting classes constituting, and privileged by, the State apparatus. [4] Saint-Simon at one time in his confused and chaotic life was close to Comte and Dunoyer and picked up his class analysis from them, in the process characteristically getting the whole thing balled up and converting businessmen on the market, as well as feudal landlords and others of the State privileged, into “exploiters.” Marx and Bakunin picked this up from the Saint-Simonians, and the result gravely misled the whole left-socialist movement; for, then, in addition to smashing the repressive State, it became supposedly necessary to smash private capitalist ownership of the means of production. Rejecting private property, especially of capital, the left socialists were then trapped in a crucial inner contradiction: if the State is to disappear after the revolution (immediately for Bakunin, gradually “withering” for Marx), then how is the “collective” to run its property without becoming an enormous State itself in fact, even if not in name? This was a contradiction which neither the Marxists nor the Bakuninists were ever able to resolve.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html