Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on What He Said


If you are an anti-tax freak then don't bitch when the floods and earhquakes hit and there is no government help out there. YOU GET WHAT YOU VOTE FOR!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

Posted by Just Me | December 10, 2007 10:22 AM

Don't be so shocked. Entire states (ID, MT, WY) have built their cultures on cursing "big guvment" while standing in line for their welfare- err, I mean farm subsidy- check. There are a couple of counties in E. MT that would be the poorest in the US (fam income

In fact one could argue (as the New Yorker did a couple of years ago) that the shame of government dependency, the legacy of government siding with railroads against farmers, and the familiarity with the frustrating bureaucracy of government is precisely why these areas are so anti-government.

That's the *real* western spirit.

Posted by Big Sven | December 10, 2007 10:23 AM

Something funky happened to the middle of my post. It dropped a half sentence. I must have inadvertantly added a supersecret formatting character.

Several counties in E. MT have family incomes of less than $15k per year, when the farm subsidies are removed from consideration.

Posted by Big Sven | December 10, 2007 10:25 AM

In your FACE, stupid flood victims!

Posted by monkey | December 10, 2007 10:28 AM

That's the most difficult part of being a liberal. We have to be better people than the guys who oppose us. God, it sucks.

Posted by Gitai | December 10, 2007 10:37 AM

Well, Bush did exactly what the Governor requested. Under taxation is not the problem, it's building on a flood plain.

Posted by raindrop | December 10, 2007 10:47 AM

Ah Goldie, don't you know that it's only considered a welfare handout when it's for an inner city minority...?

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | December 10, 2007 10:55 AM

Let's not go and blame the victims of an off the charts flood for their condition.

Posted by Greg | December 10, 2007 11:01 AM

should they not take advantage of a government program when they do pay taxes? these arguments are silly posturing. would you make the same argument that someone on welfare only votes for it because they want to stay on it?

Posted by infrequent | December 10, 2007 11:01 AM


Goldy likes to rant, these unfortunate folks DO pay federal income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes just like the rest of us.... same tax charts.

My friends and I are going there to help with cleanup next weekend, Goldy rants. What a great radio persona, a la Rush.

Get fucked Goldy, it is most likely what you need ... and consider Rogain or a shaved head. You look ratty.

Posted by Leyland | December 10, 2007 11:13 AM

OK, I'm going to take a break from being nice.

I know several people in Centralia and Chehalis -- I guess in that 40%-ish margin who voted against all of the anti-tax initiatives, and they lost everything.

I'm usually with Goldy, but this time, Goldy can go fuck himself.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | December 10, 2007 11:17 AM

And you too, Dan, for the "What He Said"


OK, phew.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | December 10, 2007 11:18 AM

While it's easy to get high and mighty, this is a little like blaming the troops (many of whom vote R) for Iraq. Yeah, the contradiction is ironic, etc. but alot of these people just need help right now. The real scandal is the Bush taking his sweet ass time responding to Gregoire's request. Think that would have happened in a republican-governed state?

Posted by Joe M | December 10, 2007 11:21 AM

Besides, when Chehalis and Centralia were arguing over projects that could have prevented this flood, they were taking on the traditional "Seattle Way" of arbitrating i.e. arguing about it incessantly and getting nothing done.

The next time we get a semi-typhoon that hits Seattle directly and brings down either the Viaduct and/or 520 Bridge, I'm sure you'll be out there on your canoe on your laptops posting "You know, we mostly voted against taxes so we deserve it. JUST SAYIN'".

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | December 10, 2007 11:22 AM

To suggest, even jokingly, that the victims of an extreme natural disaster should be denied assistance in getting basic food and shelter (let alone their lives back on track) because a majority of the county in which they live voted fiscally conservative last election is despicable.

Posted by Joselito | December 10, 2007 11:26 AM

@2: You forgot Alaska, probably the best example of all. They get the highest ratio of federal government payouts compared to what they pay in -- in spite of having so much oil revenue they hand out checks every year instead of taxing their residents.

Posted by Orv | December 10, 2007 12:01 PM

Hmm, well, considering the fact that the economy in Lewis County is not really a beacon of prosperity, most people don't vote for more taxes to be taken out of their pocket regardless of how small they are when they are struggling to get by in the first place. Drive out Hwy 6 west from Chehalis sometime and drive through all those small towns that are basically half abandoned since the logging jobs went away in the 80's and you'll start to get a sense of what I'm talking about. Even Centralia and Chehalis are not really burgeoning beacons of prosperity.

Posted by Brian in Seattle | December 10, 2007 12:02 PM

Let them ride light rail!

Posted by whatever | December 10, 2007 12:14 PM

Goldy's not blaming the victims, he's asking for some kind of ideological consistency that simply doesn't exist in this country.

People who oppose taxes for government services--like say, Social Security--shouldn't accept Social Security checks, etc. Instead, people oppose taxes but demand more and more services.

Kinda like how "conservatives" have caused the most massive increase in the size and cost of the government and its corresponding national debt in our nation's history over the last 7 years.

The core concept of American politics is that it's totally self-contradictory and illogical. What do you expect from people who read the Bible and think it makes sense?

Posted by Original Andrew | December 10, 2007 12:27 PM

Having spent a large portion of my life growing up in that part of the state, I have to say Goldie does have a point.

Sure, these are hard-working, lower-middle-class folks who don't make huge incomes, and who find paying taxes more burdensome because of their econimic circumstances. But, they are also folks who continue to cling to an increasingly anachronistic vision of semi-rural, small-town America, while at the same time viewing government at any level as more of a hindrance to their semi-fictional sense independence and self-sufficiency, than as an asset to it.

Many of the people who have been displaced in the Chehalis flood plain have lived in that area for decades, going back to the time when it was mostly cow pasture that flooded with such frequency that nobody in their right mind would have thought of actually living there.

But, of course, as soon as some developer DID start buying up the pasture land and converting it to residential plots (sometime in the early 1990's, if memory serves, right about the same time the Wal*Mart went in - go figure), suddenly memory becomes very short; after all, why would anybody build a house there if it wasn't safe? (While of course totally neglecting to take into account the quite simple, and glaringly obvious fact that, once the house is built and sold, the developer could give a rat's patootie what happens afterward). Most of them probably didn't even bother to purchase flood insurance, despite the fact that the Lewis River has been overflowing into that same flood plain pretty much forever.

And most of them will completely miss the irony that, at the first real test of how committed they are to their self-professed anti-gubamint, DIY, Gary Cooperish indepency, they have no compunction whatsoever reaching for the Big Hand-out, which would be perfectly fine and completely understandable, EXCEPT -

- I'd be willing to bet you dollars to donut holes that in three years, most of them will be back on the "anti-big gubmint" bandwagon, railing against unfair, excessive taxation, having conveniently forgotten that it was precisely because of our collective sharing of the burden that "big government" was able to step in to help them out, when they were no longer in a position to help themselves.

Posted by COMTE | December 10, 2007 12:32 PM


I'd be willing to bet you dollars to donut holes that in three years, most of them will be back on the "anti-big gubmint" bandwagon, railing against unfair, excessive taxation, having conveniently forgotten that it was precisely because of our collective sharing of the burden that "big government" was able to step in to help them out, when they were no longer in a position to help themselves.

Well, I'm really glad you guys spelled out the irony here. Oh boy! Not that it was obvious or anything. I'm sure that irony is really going to help those flood victims now. I hope you guys feel proud of yourselves for pointing it out, especially the 30 to 40% of the people there who don't fit your neat little stereotypes, acc. to Goldy's voting figures.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | December 10, 2007 12:45 PM

Goldy should go fuck himself. Why is it that none of the liberal fucktards who whine about Tim Eyman look at why people don't trust the government with their money. Let's see, we had the state legislature deciding in 1995 that we needed to have a new stadium for the Mariners, even though the voter in King County turned it down, even though it was a huge and regressive handout to some of the richest people in the State of Washington. We had the legislature decide in 1997 that we needed to give a stadium to Paul Allen, one of the richest men in the world. We had a powerful state legislator (Margarita Prentice, la puta Grande) trying to get a massive handout for the Sonics last year. We have government agencies (CPS) that fuck up all of the time and where no one is ever fired for being completely incompetent. We have a legislature that regularly approves tax exemptions for large industries (Boeing, Microsoft), thus increasing the tax burden on everyone else. Given this why isn't it rational to deny these fuckers money? It's not as if they're going to spend it on anything worthwhile, they'll piss it away placating whatever special interest group is currently clamoring loudly enough while ignoring basic needs.

The stupid response that liberal fucktards offer to this is that "well, if you don't like the way your legislator voted then vote against him in the next election". This advice would be worthwhile if we had meaningful choices in our elections but more often than not we don't. We have whatever incumbent hack is occupying the office in choice and his competitor who is, more often than not, completely beholden to special interest groups by the time he gets on the ballot. Restricting funding via initiative is a blunt instrument, but sometimes when you're dealing with a dumb beast, such as the legislature and state bureaucracy a blunt instrument, repeatedly and forcefully applied, is what you need to get their attention.

Perhaps instead of whining and shitting about how much support Tim Eyman gets liberals should sit down and ask themselves if the government is doing a good job with our money. They should ask themselves if the politicians they support are responsible stewards for public funds. Unfortunately they don't do this, which is too bad, one of the reasons the progressive movement got started, which most modern liberals seem to have forgotten, is that government at the time was corrupt and incompetent, but that isn't going to happen any time soon since most liberals and "progressives" support the Democratic party and the Democratic party gets lots and lots of money from government employee unions.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | December 10, 2007 1:13 PM

I think we should Mean Test the federal disaster relief funds.

If you are Mean, you get zilch.

So, if you're a libertarian who thinks government shouldn't do this: NADA.

If you voted for Red Bushies: NADA.

Pretty straightforward.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 10, 2007 1:56 PM

@22: Though I agree with most of what you're saying it seems to me that you're not addressing the core irony. One assumes they are happy to get the relief and then resume their former voting patterns. Do they just consider disaster relief an example of acceptable "big government"? If so couldn't that knowledge lead to a more informed stance than just "taxes baaad".

Posted by chi type | December 10, 2007 2:09 PM

Naw, let's be generous Will.

Everyone can have all the disaster relief funding their allowed, provided:

Libertarians just need to STFU about their illusionary sense of self-sufficiency. If they're not growing their own food, making their own clothing, and building their own homes, they're about as "libertarian" as my little finger.

Red State Bushies just need to STFU about how they'll turn the hated "big gubamint" into a "small gubamint", when clearly they have no intention of doing anything of the sort.

Oh, also they have to henceforth STFU about Bill Clinton; he's been out of office for 7 1/2 years now, he can't be blamed anymore for their guy being a mental midget who's FUBAR'd everything he's ever laid his grubby hands on.

Posted by COMTE | December 10, 2007 2:09 PM

reducing a philosophy to a sentence fragment tag line seems to be the new philosophy of many a democrat.

or do you really see nothing of value in the libertarian world view?

not only that, but you get to decide what they mean when they say they are one, and a moderate lib? no such thing!

you sound just like republicans who say, "well, if you don't like this country then why don't you leave!" this on the same forum where someone earlier said liberals have to hold themselves to a higher standard.

if you paid your taxes, you get the services. how difficult is that to understand? they should refuse what they paid for even if they didn't want to pay for it?

Posted by infrequent | December 10, 2007 2:21 PM

I just want to point out that I'm a libertarian (I'm a Democrat but with a libertarian POV), and I have earthquake insurance. No flood insurance because I live at the top of a mountain. So please don't assume we're all hypocrites. Carry on.

Posted by Big Sven | December 10, 2007 2:26 PM

@26: There's some value in the libertarian world view. Unfortunately, libertarians only vote on two issues: guns and taxes. So in the real world they're indistinguishable from Republicans.

Posted by Orv | December 10, 2007 2:31 PM

But by having insurance, @27, doesn't that make you a hypocrite anyway?


Not saying it's wrong to admit it - in fact, that's a far better place to be, than in denial - but ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 10, 2007 4:06 PM

@29: Only if the insurance is subsidized by the government, I would think. I don't think libertarians have any issues with insurance purchased from private corporations.

Posted by Orv | December 10, 2007 4:08 PM

@30, @29, yes, Orv, that would be correct. even so, a libertarian should be able act legally and still be a libertarian. for instance, just because one doesn't think there should be taxes (which i know of hardly anyone who actually believes this), that doesn't mean that same person wouldn't pay them. or are anti-war democrats hypocrites for paying taxes that support the war/occupation of iraq?

Posted by infrequent | December 10, 2007 4:33 PM

That's right, infrequent:

"America - Love it Or Leave It"

"You're Either With Us Or You're With The Terrorists"

"Get US Out Of The UN"

"Mission Accomplished"

"We Know Where the WMD's Are"

"I'm NOT A Crook!"

"Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"

"We Bomb Russia In Five Minutes"

"Trees Cause Polution"

"Ketsup Is A Vegetable"

Yeah, those damned Democrats - always reducing a philosophy to a sentence fragment tag line...

Posted by COMTE | December 10, 2007 4:42 PM

The next time we get a semi-typhoon that hits Seattle directly and brings down either the Viaduct and/or 520 Bridge, I'm sure you'll be out there on your canoe on your laptops posting "You know, we mostly voted against taxes so we deserve it. JUST SAYIN'".

When an earthquake takes out the viaduct, you're going to see a lot of people raising hell at the dumbasses who were too cheap to replace it one way or another.

Posted by Aexia | December 10, 2007 8:56 PM

comte, uh, i'm certainly not defending republicans in any regard. but do i like to see the same behavior i despise espoused by democrats? certainly not.

and for me to suggest democrats shouldn't do such a thing -- when i see it happening more and more frequently -- the defense is that republicans do it? so it's okay?


if republicans are crooks, and erode the constitution, i'd still hope democrats wouldn't do it. there is nothing wrong with a higher standard, and there is nothing wrong with virtue.

so i repeat, i criticize ONE thing about the democratic party, and i'm treated like a republican. once again, that is right out the republican handbook: if you criticize ONE thing about AMERICA.... then you are: against us as an terrorist america hating communist.


Posted by infrequent | December 11, 2007 10:04 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).