|
|||||||||||||
|
"Small Government" and "Incredibly High Government Spending on Military" are Not Compatible
By Punkerslut
Info: CFTR.org Page
Greetings, "Reagan understood that America was a rugged, do it yourself enterprise and that any government big enough to do everything for you is also big enough to take everything away from you." There's some difficulty in believing this statement. After all, in 1964 Reagan gave a rousing speech in favor of Barry Goldwater -- you know, the US Presidential candidate that wanted to drop nuclear bombs all across South East Asia, and probably lost the race because of this opinion. Nuclear bombs raining from the skies onto Hanoi, Seoul, Pyongyang, Beijing, Phnom Phen, etc., etc.. Now, why would Reagan understand that "any government big enough to do everything for you is also big enough to take everything away from you." ? It seems like he completely misunderstood this, because he wanted our government to use nuclear arms in the suppression of peasants' revolts in underdeveloped nations. Can you imagine a larger government than that? Can you imagine anything more "big government" than the use of advanced quantum physics to kill tens of millions of people who are practically living in the middle ages? It's hard for me to think of something much more "big government" than that. "...do it yourself enterprise..." He definitely didn't believe in this, either. With the use of police, the courts, and soldiers in the streets with bayonets and machineguns, he forced the conclusion of the Air-Traffic Controllers. How does this seem like "do it yourself" when Reagan runs in with the police, the army, and a nuclear strike anytime a worker refuses to labor for their boss? How are businesses doing it for themselves when they use the police to beat unionists, soldiers to imprison activists, and spies to break into homes and kidnap union-workers? "Big government" is a problem, apparently, when taxes rise 2 or 3% on the wealthy -- it seems to have nothing to do with a widespread, secret police force that monitors the activity of the populace and imprisons people indiscriminately There is no "big government" when police execute people in the streets, engage in pogroms against racial minorities, or lead lynch mobs, all of which still continues to this day. This isn't "big government." No, big government can't be seen when police are throwing nooses over tree branches -- big government can only be seen in the stock sections of the newspaper, when a small article indicates an increase on a tax rate. That's big government -- not hanging people, but taxing a few of the rich and wealthy. Big government. What if Reagan bombed villages full of men, women, and children in Libya, because a terrorist allegedly was of Libyan descent? That's not the activity of "big government elites." That's "conservative political philosophy." What about the invasion of Grenada? Would you consider the massacring of the underdeveloped world, a key piece of Reagan's overall political philosophy, to be "small government"? What about the hiring of terrorists, creating the world's largest cocaine cartel, and the open massacre of people in Nicaragua? That's not "big government," that's just good ol' "Reaganomics." "The belief that man’s freedom comes from God and not the State is once again in danger of being extinguished in America." For your sake, I hope god exists. Because if there isn't some powerful being that controls everything, you have no hope against the onslaught of nuclear attacks, the spy machine, or the prison complexes. I definitely wouldn't expect the world's largest empire, the United States, to give anyone freedom. But for you, to come to the front and say that slave empires aren't based on "big government" is quite absurd. Your political opponents support "big government" when they want to increase taxes, allegedly. But you, apparently, don't support "big government," when you want the government to have a huge police and army, and then to use this police and army to repress the people -- illegally tapped phones, unequal protection of the law, complete suspension of all constitutional rights, and a media that cooperates in convincing everyone that this is completely legitimate No, that's not "BIG GOVERNMENT." Big government is when you have to pay 1.5% more taxes on the dividends from your stock investments. How convenient. When police are in the streets, killing people, and nobody is stopping them, that's big government in my opinion. When the taxes of this or that income group fluctuate, it's only "Big government" to those who are politically blind. Reagan crushed unions when they challenged big business, he gave subsidies to the wealthy and the corporations, and he built up the largest "welfare for the rich" program in the world, plunging the government into the worst debt of US history. Sounds like the biggest government on the world: take social spending that's paid for by the poor workers and instead, give it to the rich. And if anyone gets in the way, you have courts, police, and the military to stop them. But, to you, this is the "alternative to big government." Have you woken up yet?
It is in front your nose, too. Thank you for reading this far, I patiently await a response. Sincerely,
|
