"Diatribe"

Well, it's good to be back and writing again. Thought you all might enjoy a pleasant exchange I've been having with one of my biggest fans. I know everyone doesn't read the comments, and as my friend points out, I don't have a very large readership. So I provide you here with the "Full Monty" so to speak.

This comment is in response to my "Homeward Bound" post from last week:

tom said...
Most people pay good money to see a band play not to pontificate there political beliefs.

I remember attending a Jackson Browne concert and a quarter of the way through the set he decided to show this short film clip on the horrors of nuclear war and to elaborate on why democrats and socialism was a far better venue then self responsibility and working hard to achieve.

It was pretty great when many in the audience got up and said SHUT UP and SING repeatedly until he was drowned out and started to play again.

I would bet many in the audience decided at that point none of their hard earned money was going to be used to purchase anything again from Jackson Browne. I know I don't and will even turn the radio station if one comes on.

I've often wondered how people get the idea that Gore would have handled 9/11 any differently or is the concept that 9/11 wouldn't have occurred with a Gore in the White House.

I can picture it now, we send peace keepers over to Afghanistan to plant trees and shrubberies in the low level regions of the land and that makes us a shining beacon of light to the Middle Easterners.

Musicians should pontificate on there own time and give the paying audience what they wanted to see a concert pertaining to music.

October 20, 2008 1:01 PM


Stu Solomon said...
Well, Tom, to be brutally honest, I don't really care if people pontificate "there" political beliefs when the entire event was held specifically for the purpose of rallying support for the Obama-Biden ticket.

Somehow I knew you'd be the one who would be the first to respond to my post and it would be negative.

I'm glad you held back until my trip was over and now I can tell you what I really think.

I have been listening patiently to Republicans and Libertarians, alike, claiming the benefits of deregulation and "laissez-faire" economics for nearly three decades, now. I find it interesting how many "die-hard" (more like blow-hard) fans of Reaganomics refuse to admit what this idea of trickle-down economics has failed the American people and, in particular, American small business owners.

We all know the top 10% of earners in our country pay 90% of the taxes. These are not the people being negatively affected by our economy. Sure, their balance sheet goes down, but it always bounces back.

This economic "crisis" was coming for a long time and only an ignoramus would actually blame it on any one group. That's exactly what John McCain is doing, however.

He is running one of the most negative political ad campaigns in recent memory and there is no factual basis underlying his assertions.

The economy was in a tailspin at the end of Reagan's second term. It wasn't in much better shape at the end of GHW Bush's, either. It's in an absolute downward spiral here at the end of W's and I believe economic markets are the easist way to manipulate popular opinion in election years.

This "crisis" has not been manufactured as much as it has been timed. People who keep track of these things realized this turn of events was going to happen, and many of us believed it would come to a head right before the election.

It isn't working according to plan, however. These things rarely do. In addition to distracting popular focus from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which was the GOPs wish upon a star) it has focused on the absence of moral fiber and complete disregard of fairplay common decency among the ultra-rich and privileged classes.

There is a backlash coming.

Democrats have been rudderless for nearly eight years. Now, by virtue of this gamble on the part of the ultra-conservative members of the ruling economic interests, popular sentiment is rearing its head and preparing to strike at the primary culprit.

I don't know about you all, but one of the first things I learned as a young adult (a lesson which came at a dear cost to myself) was the adage "don't mess with other people's money".
Before you get your back up and claim "that's what the bailout is!" I will already concede that point. However, the bailout is the natural reaction to the messy state of affairs on Wall Street and Washington. These are the real culprits guilty of forgetting the popular saying.

The bailout is bailing out the small investor and business owner who can't afford to make it without credit. If you want to see a global depression which the rest of the world would rightly blame on U.S. neglect and outright greed, then you may, ultimately, receive your wish.

The bailout is an effort on the part of our government to avert such a disastrous event. Free market capitalism is not a living breathing organism. It is a man-made tool of economics and is manipulated by those with the most money.

Period.

If government does not seek to regulate these institutions of capitalism for the common good, then we will lapse into a modern age of feudalism. Some sociologists and economists would argue we have already unknowingly entered such an era.

Oh, by the way, there are many of us who believe 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all if GHWB and GWB hadn't been elected. And since you've brought up the subject of wondering about things we can't change, but wish we could...

I wonder if Reagan would have been elected to another term if the public had known that his staff had back-room dealings with the Iran terrorists to delay the release of the American hostages until after his initial inauguration. Interesting how this fact and the Iran-Contra affair weren't revealed to the public in time for his re-election. Hmmmm.

PS Thanks for your kind wishes for me having a happy vacation. I hope you share your next outing with me, so I may extend you the same courtesy.

PPS By the way, the tickets to this event were $50 for the public and $30 for students, which is very reasonable in today's concert market. I know people who are paying much more to see the Eagles play a much shorter show.

October 20, 2008 1:58 PM


tom said...
I must have missed the point in the post where you or anyone said the event was a fundraiser for the Obama-Biden ticket. I could've sworn you were just going to a concert, my bad...

As for government and your diatribe on what government should and shouldn't do I'll point out the following quote in your own response

"I don't know about you all, but one of the first things I learned as a young adult (a lesson which came at a dear cost to myself) was the adage "don't mess with other people's money".

We are required by government to funnel up to 35% of our income into areas where the federal government has taken complete control and yes this includes the cost of health insurance and other cost not related. As a business owner I'm dictated by government to have a minimum of 27 mandated coverages (this is state government)which drive up the cost of my premiums. The fed regulates how the insurance companies maintain the business model from which they operate which adds undue cost to employers and employees alike.

If the federal government got back to Section VIII of the Constitution we wouldn't be in the mess that we have today.

I really enjoy how one defines my comments as negative since I was referring to a concert that I was at and it was not portrayed as a fund raiser or a supporter of any campaign and I didn't see where the one you were in attendance at was referred to in that manner either.

I'm not a fan of Reagan either but can you prove the statement that you have listed in your comments ??

"I wonder if Reagan would have been elected to another term if the public had known that his staff had back-room dealings with the Iran terrorists to delay the release of the American hostages until after his initial inauguration. Interesting how this fact and the Iran-Contra affair weren't revealed to the public in time for his re-election. Hmmmm.

Your political party has been in power for two years now so can you please list there accomplishments and how these accomplishments have benefited the American middle class

October 20, 2008 2:16 PM


tom said...
Besides since NO one has been responding to your blogs I thought you might enjoy the bantering back and forth of someone who is actually reading what you write.

October 20, 2008 2:18 PM


Stu Solomon said...
It's typical of you to "pick and choose" what you remember. I believe you can google or wikipedia search either of the two references I made to Reagan's administration. That's old hat and I don't have to provide a bibliography for these statements. They are opinions, but opinions based upon substantiated reports by newsgathering agencies like the Associated Press, CBS News and the like. Of course, now you'll probably be jumping on the wagon of labeling these organizations as the "mainstream liberal media" or some such crap as most of the people of your ilk are want to do.

I said from the beginning I don't want to be petty and would strive to be civil, but the personal attack on the volume of readers of this blog kinda urges me to take the gloves off.

As far as "diatribe" goes...
I may be posting "diatribe" but at least it's literate diatribe and not based solely on my own personal experiences. Most of what I say is founded in substantial fact and not just theory.

I don't mind bantering back and forth, but I don't necessarily look forward to exchanging volleys with someone who simply espouses the inane "woe is me" whining of the small Midwestern businessman bitching about the state of affairs his portfolio is in or the "evil machinations" of the American government trying to drain the life's blood out of his business. If you're going to point fingers at anybody you should be pointing them at Republicans for NOT granting small businesses the same tax loopholes that the corporate giants have been casually strolling through all these decades. (Let's remember that Congress has been controlled by the GOP for considerably more years than the Dems. That's one reason they keep going all the way back to the '60s and '70s to find the "reasons" for our troubles today.)

Did you ever stop to think that if the corporate giants had to pay their fair share, maybe you small businessmen could catch a break? Probably not. For it is the goal of most (but certainly not all) small businessmen/women (sorry...not wanting to be labeled "sexist") to become big businessmen/women. Protest that statement all you want, but if you really expect me to believe you wouldn't be happy as a pig in slop to find your business booming this time next year, I say balderdash.

You can slam my low readership volume all you want, Tom. I never fully expected a big base of readers. I'm just glad I live in the state congressional district I do and can proudly be represented by someone who only modestly approaches my ideals of what government should be expected to do for the people.

In my mind, governments are judged by history for the way the least and "lowest" of their citizens are benefitted. (The golden age of the Roman Empire was a time of slave reform and innovations in infrastructure which benefitted the common people far more than the rich.) These days (election days) we all hear about the plight of the middle class, but all in all they still have it pretty good compared with most other countries. It is the working poor and unemployed who need the help and protection of government. NOT the rich. NOT big business. NOT small businessmen.

I truly hope we get to the position in this country where the corporate giants pay their fair share. I know they already pay more than everyone else, but that's because they MAKE more than everyone else. If there weren't so many damn loopholes for them to escape from paying what the system is designed for them to contribute, maybe small business owners like you could catch a break.

I reread my original post and have determined you are either fibbing about not realizing it was a political function, or just an inattentive reader. Either way your personal attack on my lack of readership was irrelevant and of little import.

Have a nice day and....

GO OBAMA!!!!!

Now if we could just get that weasel Roy Blunt out of office, I'd really be happy.

October 20, 2008 5:09 PM