View Full Version : Cain's "sexual harassment"?
What do you think of this? Its hard to believe that the women are making this up.....especially when there were settlements in at least one or 2 of the cases.
How can Cain absolutely deny that these happened?
What do you think is going on?
If I recall, he denied any knowledge of a settlement early on, which sounded fishy. But he has said he would take a lie detector test. And especially the fourth seems a little bogus. What ever, I think it is enough to take him out of the running.
It reminds me of a rather cute story. The co-owner of the company I worked for, whose name would be recognizable, told it at an addrees when he was in his late 80's. A couple of years earlier he had been at a high profile gathering and at the end of the ceremonies a few much younger ladies came up to hug him and give a peck on the cheek. He was a kind and soft spoken man and a little frail, so possibly a lovable guy. His wife pulled him aside and said, Bill you should be careful. You don't know what these girls might say about you.
He replied, "Dear, at my age, I'll take that chance."
It is quite possible that the company that he worked for settled with the plaintiffs without his knowing about it. Settling is often far less expensive than going to court, even when you're innocent.
It is also quite possible that this latest woman is making up the story to get noticed or to get paid by his detractors. Claiming sexual harassment in this country can make you quite wealthy, even if you're lying.
eh, i don't know. i don't really worry about this. i'm more interested in his platforms, and since i don't care for those, then he's out of my consciousness.
Sexual harassment in the workplace is rampant and inexcusable.
I know a fellow very well who was accused of sexual harassment by a female underling, and his company settled. He's about as 100% homosexual as they get, but the company still decided to avoid the fuss and bother.
I also know people of both sexes and all orientations who *did* engage in real harassment, some of whom skated, some paid dearly.
Without intimate knowledge of the details, it's hard to judge from media accounts what may have happened.
So it's just a circus from this distance.
loosechickens
11-9-11, 2:03am
Hopefully, over time, this issue will become more clear. At this point, there are certainly some things that on the surface at least, look suspicious, but time will tell.
I did, however, think it was the height of ludicrous for Cain today in his press conference to blame the "Democrat machine" for his troubles, as well as people just "not wanting to have a businessman to be President of the United States". In the first place, what is Mitt Romney? Chopped liver? He had something like one term as governor and 30 years or more as a businessman, and I haven't seen anyone accusing HIM of sexual harassment.
And the idea that the Dems are behind this.......the Dems would LOVE for Cain to be the Republican nominee. His views on so many things are well out of the mainstream of independent and moderate voters who will be who decides the election in the general election, and besides, most polls show President Obama handily defeating Herman Cain by 13-18 points, while polls show President Obama beating Mitt Romney by only a few points, and some polls showing them tied, or even with Romney ahead.
And the longer the Republican candidates keep slashing each other, the better for the Democrats, as the survivor who gets the nomination will be wounded by his own team by the time he gets there (I say "he" because I think most agree that it isn't going to be Michelle Bachmann), so for the Dems, the longer this process takes for the Republicans to come up with a nominee, the better. The LAST thing the Democrats would want would be for Cain to fall by the wayside at this point. If it were them behind this, they would have waited to see if he got the nomination and THEN sprung the trap.
Nope.....I think this guy just was NOT ready for prime time, just like Rick Perry. These two settlements were in his background, (and may not be the only things), just waiting to trip him up. And as soon as he was a serious candidate, that microscope scanning him, and the spotlights shined on him would have turned them up. Too many people knew about them.
And how his campaign handled this whole mess has been AWFUL. They knew the Politico story was going to come out several weeks before it appeared, yet seem to have been caught flatfooted and stumbled badly right out of the gate in dealing with it.
It remains to be seen how this will turn out, and what accusations come out, and what level of truth can be ascertained. As bae said, at this point, it's just a circus, because the only people who really know what went on or didn't, are Herman Cain and these (at least) five women.
Hard not to watch though......although I feel very badly for Mrs. Cain, who surely doesn't deserve this mess.
goldensmom
11-9-11, 6:30am
I saw 2 snippets on the news. The third accuser was on the news, said it happened and gave details. Mr. Cain said it didn't happen and that he did not know the lady. All I know for certain is that someone is lying.
I keep hoping for some truth along the way.....which probably won't happen. We've seen people in the past totally, absolutely, positively deny charges against them......and they were totally, absolutely, positively lying. Sure would make life easier if people were just honest...........but to quote Cain (about his withdrawing)......"It ain't gonna happen".
Hopefully, over time, this issue will become more clear...
or not. To me the Clarence Thomas things wqs never resolved. I purposely read a book in his favor, and a book by her, to try to get a sense of who done who wrong, and I never DID take a position.
Maybe the problem is that some "sexual" behavior isn't thought of as sexual behavior to some people, and they don't even realize they did anything offensive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for anyone. I was just thinking of Thomas and Anita Hill. They both seemed so certain of what did and didn't happen. Maybe its all a matter of unconscious behavior on the perpetrator's part. Then again, I think someone is always lying about the facts, unfortunately.
Maybe the problem is that some "sexual" behavior isn't thought of as sexual behavior to some people, and they don't even realize they did anything offensive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for anyone. I was just thinking of Thomas and Anita Hill. They both seemed so certain of what did and didn't happen. Maybe its all a matter of unconscious behavior on the perpetrator's part. Then again, I think someone is always lying about the facts, unfortunately.
I think that is often the case, too.
poetry_writer
11-9-11, 9:08am
Who knows if he did anything or not? Its politics, where opponents and the media attempt to trash the character of everyone running. It makes me sick.
I find Cain refreshing, fun and fascinating...... so what Mitt ISN'T.
I hope Cain is guilty of the accusations because if he isn't, what's happening to him and his family would be a crying shame.
I watched the press conference last night and it was BOLD.
I don't know that woman. and I have never been inappropriate to anyone ever. Period. (I may be off in my wording, the way I remember it.)
Cain must have recently seen the Seinfeld where George Costanza constantly refers to himself in the 3rd person too.
Someone is flat out lying somewhere.
If there is a smoking gun -- I might look to the underbelly of the Repub machine for it.
Cain, Bachman, Perry... those candidates do not have national general election appeal and I think they are getting thrown under the bus by their own party or at the very least not thrown lifelines.
I am totally open to being proved wrong.
Democrats would love nothing more than to go head to head with Cain.
Who knows if he did anything or not? Its politics, where opponents and the media attempt to trash the character of everyone running. It makes me sick.
To be fair, the media loves this stuff, politicians or not. It sells.
Not to excuse any kind of unacceptable behavior, but part of the problem boils down to defining what 'harassment' really is. Some people are so offended by even a dirty joke that they feel violated just hearing one. While it may be an example of poor taste on the part of the joke teller, would it really be harassment if the sensitive person overheard it? On the other side are people who seem to think anything short of rape is acceptable. There are plenty of legal guidelines, but still huge gray areas that can be entered through behavior when the intent was perfectly innocent. It also pays to remember that it is so common place in corporate America to simply settle claims out of court that the fact there were settlements is, in and of itself, meaningless. To paraphrase what bae said, its all just part of the circus in the view from my house.
mtnlaurel
11-9-11, 10:14am
"Darlin' I didn't know you'd find that pat on the a** so offensive, I meant it like from one football teammate to another."
This has nothing to do with Cain... it's just my sick sense of humor (or lack thereof).
And I get that Sexual Harassment isn't a laughing matter - it's happened to me in the workplace and it was NOT funny.
I was able to handle the situation myself, but all because there ARE laws about it and looked the p.o.s. straight in the eye and let him know I was willing to escalate his crap if he didn't stop it, like NOW.
Hmmmm.....this thread made me remember something. When I was about 22, my boyfriend broke up with me. I was devastated. I started going to group counseling to get a handle on my sadness. I had heard that the leader of the group (an M.D.) actually had one of his previous patients living with him and his wife, which I thought was curious. One evening, I got really despondent. I called him and he told me to meet me at his office. We sat there talking, and he put his arm around me, which I thought was kind/compassionate of him. Then HE KISSED ME ON THE LIPS!!!! I was very uncomfortable. I never told anyone. But damn, in retrospect, this was a horrible thing for him to do. Its like the problem they're having at Penn State now..........all those young boys who trusted this guy, and he does that to them. I was confused at 22 as to what I should feel about the situation. I can't imagine how those really young boys felt.
Anyhow......I guess my point is.......sexual harassment can be very confusing when it happens. Many times, you're in a vulnerable position......whether it be a child with an adult, a person needing a job from someone, etc., and you haven't had enough experience to really know HOW to feel about it. Its seems to only occur to alot of people later, how unacceptable this behavior really was.
Heck, I may be a prude, but someone in a position of power groping around under my skirt definitely qualifies as sexual harassment. The man's sickening, possesses terrible judgment, and has laughably unrealistic positions on the issues. He's a freakin' cartoon. Can't wait for him to stop polluting the news.
Heck, I may be a prude, but someone in a position of power groping around under my skirt definitely qualifies as sexual harassment.
In my book, it's more than harassment, it's sexual assault. If someone tried that sort of thing on my wife, she'd probably at minimum remove the offending limb.
I think where he is digging himself into a hole is saying -- NONE of this ever happened -- EVER. If it remains a he said she said, he is probably okay, but if one shread of evidence comes forth that puts a crack in the NEVER, EVER statement he is done. We are not electing a minister, but we do want someone with integrity.
I am amazed how quickly the rabit media can find dirt on these women - like when James Carvelle made the statement (back in the Clinton years) -- "its is amazing what you can find if you drag a $ 20.00 bill through a trailer park". ouch! ...actually I see now the quote said a $ 100.00 bill...
I think where he is digging himself into a hole is saying -- NONE of this ever happened -- EVER. If it remains a he said she said, he is probably okay, but if one shread of evidence comes forth that puts a crack in the NEVER, EVER statement he is done. We are not electing a minister, but we do want someone with integrity.
That's what I think. It's all of a piece with his shoot-from-the-hip, "let Mark be Mark" attitude: he doesn't seem aware of what he's really communicating, nor take the time to think through a potentially disastrous situation before opening his mouth. Then, later, he changes his story after thinking it through. I totally get that: if something had happened that long ago for me, my first impulse statement would probably not be completely accurate, not because I'm not trying to be honest but simply because it's not on the top of my mind. But as a nation, we can't afford a president who doesn't have the ability to (or understand the need for) buy a little time to think it through, get his memories and/or his story straight, and give us a consistent, believable narrative. He handled something that could potentially ruin his chances with his typical ready-fire-aim approach - how will he handle Kim Jong Il or some sudden firestorm in northern Africa or the Middle East? Will he handle the country with more care than he's handling his campaign? It's more of the ill-conceived/not-conceived "smoking ad" style: he still has no clue of how that ad communicated a series of messages that undermined the intended one (from the grim, gritty noir effect to the creepy uber-closeups to blowing smoke in our faces). His campaign should have examined that skeleton in the closet closely and been prepared for this, been ready to go, innocent or not.
I think it's too early to say whether there will be substance to the claims or not. His explanation about teasing some woman about her height is just goofy enough that it could be a genuine attempt to figure out what the heck it's all about: the restaurant association could have settled without actually involving him. Or it could just be the worst dang smoke screen ever. An important point for me is that sexual harassment is about abuse of power. If he's guilty of abusing his power as a CEO in that way, do we really want to entrust him with the power of the US Presidency?
Actually, the fact that his campaign is run by someone who was barred from politics altogether for a period of years for violating election laws convinced me that his judgment may be a bit lacking.
In my book, it's more than harassment, it's sexual assault.
Agreed! Sexual harrasment can take many forms - and what may be considered harrasment to one person, may not to to another - but from what I have heard the accusors say, his actions (if true) go beyond harrasment into assault. Of course finding out if they are true is difficult, although his denial of any knowledge of 2 settlements is hard to believe - especially as CEO of the company - and makes him MUCH less credible IMHO.
I think it is for this very reason, people need to avoid situations that could have the appearance of wrong doing. Like what are they doing riding around in car together - and he a married man? If they find them in such a situation, they should keep their distance.
I have never been for co-workers going to lunch, break, etc. alone. First to protect yourself - from false accusers. >:( Secondly, no one sets out to have an affair, it always starts innocently - but the results are damaging to so many people.
In this day of sexual harrassment - one just needs to be extra careful. ;)
I think some people's egos are just too big and they think they can do anything to anyone.
In my book, it's more than harassment, it's sexual assault. If someone tried that sort of thing on my wife, she'd probably at minimum remove the offending limb.
Nowadays, I would do the same. But when I was in my 20's or 30's, I hadn't yet learned how to stand up to power. I was a good person, a very good person, but I did not yet know how to defend myself on all of those levels.
That would not make it my fault, and would not absolve the offender. Though many in this world would not agree with me.
I find the parallels between Bill Clinton and Herman Cain so interesting. Not so interesting is the fact that people who were aghast that we'd elect a man "under suspicion" like Clinton are perfectly willing to send campaign contributions to Cain. Fascinating society we live in.
iris lily
11-10-11, 9:54pm
I wrote a post about "assault" but erased it. I suppose this is, in the legal sense, assault since Cain touched the Bialek woman (so she says.) But I think it's only a big deal potentially (if true) for employment, not in a personal way. She said "no" and he stopped. I wouldn't call in the gendarmes over that.
But I agree wtih Gregg44 that he left no wiggle room for saying that he doesn't remember her at all, and if someone can prove that they had contact, he's out.
Even these accusations aside, he just gets too ticked off too easily to be a president who has to deal with alot of problems nationally and internationally.
loosechickens
11-11-11, 2:43pm
I find myself wondering about the "tin ear" of this guy, given the circumstances.....I saw this today, by John Aravosis, on www.americablog.com and it made great sense to me. Being a supporter of President Obama, I'd honestly rather see him facing this man than Mitt Romney, because I think Herman Cain will be much less palatable to the moderate voters who will really decide the election, but......this gives me a disquieted feeling.
"Not only am I increasingly convinced that Herman Cain has a problem with women, but it's also becoming clear that he doesn't have very good judgment either. When you're in the middle of a sexual harassment scandal you don't call the most senior woman in the US government "princess." As Jon Stewart noted last night, it's not really appropriate to call any girl, past the age of 5, princess.
But last night, Cain did it again. For some reason, on being told that Anita Hill had a new book out on race and gender, Cain doubled over in hysterics. Then he told a joke: "Is she going to endorse me?" Cain and the crowd laughed again, apparently because it's hysterically funny when women accuse men of sexual harassment and sexual assault. (There's video via the link.)
Here's the thing. If you're facing multiple charges of sexual harassment, and at least one charge of sexual assault, and you're in the race to be president, you'd play it serious, at least for a few days. You'd avoid gratuitously denigrating women. And you'd definitely avoid any discussion of Anita Hill, regardless of your opinions of her. You wouldn't laugh at the mention of her name, and then crack a joke about it. Unless you were a rather unserious candidate, and a little bit creepy too"
I find myself wondering about the "tin ear" of this guy, given the circumstances.....I saw this today, by John Aravosis, on www.americablog.com and it made great sense to me. Being a supporter of President Obama, I'd honestly rather see him facing this man than Mitt Romney, because I think Herman Cain will be much less palatable to the moderate voters who will really decide the election, but......this gives me a disquieted feeling.
"Not only am I increasingly convinced that Herman Cain has a problem with women, but it's also becoming clear that he doesn't have very good judgment either. When you're in the middle of a sexual harassment scandal you don't call the most senior woman in the US government "princess." As Jon Stewart noted last night, it's not really appropriate to call any girl, past the age of 5, princess.
But last night, Cain did it again. For some reason, on being told that Anita Hill had a new book out on race and gender, Cain doubled over in hysterics. Then he told a joke: "Is she going to endorse me?" Cain and the crowd laughed again, apparently because it's hysterically funny when women accuse men of sexual harassment and sexual assault. (There's video via the link.)
Here's the thing. If you're facing multiple charges of sexual harassment, and at least one charge of sexual assault, and you're in the race to be president, you'd play it serious, at least for a few days. You'd avoid gratuitously denigrating women. And you'd definitely avoid any discussion of Anita Hill, regardless of your opinions of her. You wouldn't laugh at the mention of her name, and then crack a joke about it. Unless you were a rather unserious candidate, and a little bit creepy too"
This picture was in the yahoo news article about that. The hat (and the context) makes him look like an aging pimp: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-caught-camera-joking-anita-hill-165414641.html
Are people still really bothered by powerful men and sexual prerogatives? It's what makes the world go round, especially the legal-media complex.
Are people still really bothered by powerful men and sexual prerogatives? It's what makes the world go round, especially the legal-media complex.
No, only women, and men who have any sense of decency. It's what makes the smarmy, creepy part of the world go round, of course. It may be a fact of life if you want to be a starlet or your life's not complete unless you make partner (no matter the price). But I'd rather not have that energy running the country I love.
Are people still really bothered by powerful men and sexual prerogatives?
I don't care how powerful a man is. His "sexual prerogative" does not include touching another person against their will.
Are people still really bothered by powerful men and sexual prerogatives?
Yes.
I don't care how powerful a man is. His "sexual prerogative" does not include touching another person against their will.
+1
chanterelle
11-12-11, 5:53pm
Are people still really bothered by powerful men and sexual prerogatives? It's what makes the world go round, especially the legal-media complex.
This is not real POWER, it is sheer, bloated, unwarranted ego, misplaced sense of self-importance and abuse of position.
Power does not come into situations where you touch, insult, degrade or berate someone because you can, pathology and sociopathy do.
Power protects, nurtures and expands life for everyone within your sphere. Ignorance, lack of mature presence and serious self delusion do the opposite.
Are people still really bothered by powerful men and sexual prerogatives? It's what makes the world go round, especially the legal-media complex.
Did they ever stop being bothered by it?
HKPassey
11-13-11, 12:35am
I don't care how powerful a man is. His "sexual prerogative" does not include touching another person against their will.
+1
HKPassey
11-13-11, 12:44am
Are people still really bothered by powerful men and sexual prerogatives? It's what makes the world go round, especially the legal-media complex.
Hmmm... why not ask the people in Happy Valley? That's what the whole Penn State issue is about, a powerful man and his sexual prerogatives, abuse of power for sexual gratification.
And no, it never has made the world go round. If every powerful man in the world suddenly became a eunuch, business would go on as usual. It's a perk and a way of demonstrating one's power, but it's also a non-essential in a business and political sense.
"
The truth is, our Puritan country loves the language of sexual harassment: it lets us be enlightened and sexually conservative, modern and judgmental, sensitive and disapproving, voyeuristic and correct all at the same time. "
Katie Roiphe NyTimes Sunday
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/sex-harassment-what-on-earth-is-that.html?_r=1
puglogic
11-13-11, 10:49pm
Ah, well, let us all bow down to the infinite wisdom of Katie Roiphe.
Roiphe is Camille Paglia without the class, the writing chops, or the spine (not that I adore Paglia, but she is able to pull this sort of anti-feminist stuff off, even admirably, whereas Roiphe perpetually sounds like a snotty, sheltered, blueblood academic with little experience of the real world.)
She occasionally makes valid points about personal responsibility, and how feminism sometimes goes off the deep end. She also revels in her juicy role as a cultural "shocktrooper," almost to a masturbatory degree. It seems to make her go all a-tingle to speak of things about which she knows little, such as how it feels to be on the receiving end of sexual assault, and to lay the blame -- 100% of the blame -- on the victim. No matter the individual circumstances, all are painted with the same broad brush for not being as wise, as strong, or as principled as she (believes she) is and always has been.
As an aside, <sarcasm> I always love it when misogynists opine on cases of sexual abuse.</sarcasm> Really, everyone, why should we care about this? No one else does, right? Just accept that this predation is part of life, the right and natural order of things, and tell your daughters that too.
Incredible.
Ah, well, let us all bow down to the infinite wisdom of Katie Roiphe.
Roiphe is Camille Paglia without the class, the writing chops, or the spine (not that I adore Paglia, but she is able to pull this sort of anti-feminist stuff off, even admirably, whereas Roiphe perpetually sounds like a snotty, sheltered, blueblood academic with little experience of the real world.)
She occasionally makes valid points about personal responsibility, and how feminism sometimes goes off the deep end. She also revels in her juicy role as a cultural "shocktrooper," almost to a masturbatory degree. It seems to make her go all a-tingle to speak of things about which she knows little, such as how it feels to be on the receiving end of sexual assault, and to lay the blame -- 100% of the blame -- on the victim. No matter the individual circumstances, all are painted with the same broad brush for not being as wise, as strong, or as principled as she (believes she) is and always has been.
As an aside, <sarcasm> I always love it when misogynists opine on cases of sexual abuse.</sarcasm> Really, everyone, why should we care about this? No one else does, right? Just accept that this predation is part of life, the right and natural order of things, and tell your daughters that too.
Incredible.
I agree with that assessment. She is similar to Pagilia. I would call their style careless contrarianism. Careless because they don't seem to be able to think through the logical implications of what they are writing and they don't seem to care about the living, breathing, suffering people they dismiss so easily. They just like the attention that comes with stirring the pot by being politically incorrect.
The definition of sexual harrassment is quite clear and gender neutral. Men and women should be able to do their jobs without unwanted, uninvited, inappropriate sexual behavior by their co-workers. Sexual harrassment is more than just a single raunchy joke told in the presence of someone who doesn't appreciate that kind of humor.
It is really not that difficult to conform your behavior to what is socially acceptable in the workplace. And it is not that difficult to figure out the standard. Just treat women in the work place like you would want other people to treat your wife, daughter, mother, sister, female friends. If you wouldn't want your daughter's boss to grope her, why would you think it is acceptable for you to put your hands on someone else's daughter?
I think it is for this very reason, people need to avoid situations that could have the appearance of wrong doing. Like what are they doing riding around in car together - and he a married man? If they find them in such a situation, they should keep their distance.
I have never been for co-workers going to lunch, break, etc. alone. First to protect yourself - from false accusers. >:( Secondly, no one sets out to have an affair, it always starts innocently - but the results are damaging to so many people.
In this day of sexual harrassment - one just needs to be extra careful. ;)
Unfortunately, that's not always possible to do in many jobs (like mine in the coast guard aboard ships). Often times these same co-workers (crew members) are not only your friends, but you family too - especially when you are stuck together 24/7 for months on end while at sea. Even in a civilain 9 to 5 kind of job many people are friends with their co-workers and have bonded with them on that level. But my experience has been good when it comes to men - most that i have known are decent, honorable, respectful people towards women and I have never had anyone make any kind of sexually inappropriate behavior towards me (or maybe they're just afraid of me - I am a bit scary - and I was armed :-)!!). Of course, bad language, off-color jokes, and bawdy behavior do happen when you are working with men 24/7 for months on end aboard a ship - often as the lone female. But it's funny because even though I "hung out" with my male crew members when we were in port, we usually did it in a group and I (and they) never put ourselves in situations were anything could happen that would even remotely smack of being inappropriate. But we were all a very huggy, hanging on to each other kind of group of people (like family and close friends are rather than co-workers) and I can see how that could be construed as "sexual" by som even though it wasn't. And I can see a young, inexperienced girl in the same situation with a man who was not honorable. She may not have the experience to understand what was happening or know how to deal with it. It's especialy sad when an older person who is their superior preys on that inexperience. That's bad but it's just as bad to be harassed at ANY age or level of experience in ANY way. So there ARE situations in which co-workers, underliings and bosses are together alone or even in hugging kinds of ways, where it is perfectly appropriate. It's not being alone with someone, it's their behavior.
Yahoo has a clip today of Cain being asked whether he agrees with President Obama's support of the Libyan rebels. He doesn't have an answer. Libya was in the news very recently and very significantly, but he apparently wasn't paying attention and didn't form an opinion. Oy!
Yahoo has a clip today of Cain being asked whether he agrees with President Obama's support of the Libyan rebels. He doesn't have an answer. Libya was in the news very recently and very significantly, but he apparently wasn't paying attention and didn't form an opinion. Oy!
I heard him say that it was just a pause and people were making too big a deal of it. However, when he said that he seemed so angry and short tempered that I again wondered, as others suggested here, if he was unable to control his temper over such small things how would he do when it came to much larger issues? I personally have never seen his appeal as a presidental candidate - completely inexperienced in politics and seems to deflect all the issues with a bit of swarmy suave manuvers. I felt this way before any of the sexual harrassment issues arose. I'll stick with my man Obama thank you very much :-)!
I can't believe any one actually considers this guy as a viable candidate! Really, after about the 3rd or 4th time he opened his mouth he disqualified himself! Do any of the republicans here really think he is a serious candidate? I'm asking honestly cause I can't think of most here as really considering him. It would be like the democrats running Elton John! yea, he has opinions but, not the brightest bulb on the tree.
iris lily
11-16-11, 9:44pm
Sure, I would consider Cain, since you asked.
iris lily
11-16-11, 9:44pm
SPartana that is a very cute photo of you and the boys, nice!
I can't believe any one actually considers this guy as a viable candidate! Really, after about the 3rd or 4th time he opened his mouth he disqualified himself! Do any of the republicans here really think he is a serious candidate? I'm asking honestly cause I can't think of most here as really considering him. It would be like the democrats running Elton John! yea, he has opinions but, not the brightest bulb on the tree.
I think he's viable. Actually I'm in a Gingrich/Cain kinda mood this week.
freein05
11-16-11, 11:50pm
A debate between Obama and Cain would be both fun and sad to watch. Obama would clean his clock. If Cain wins the Republican nomination, Obama is a shoe in for another 4 years. Gingrich was in the news today for getting a 1 million dollar payment for advising Freddie mac. He was not he says lobbying which is illegal for an ex-congress person but just giving advise. I have never agreed with Gingrich's policies but I thought he was honest. Now I have to question that.
loosechickens
11-17-11, 12:30am
Ah, be still, my heart, at the very IDEA of Gingrich/Cain.....the possibilities astound me, although pretty much all in the way that would pretty much guarantee a second term for President Obama. Yep, the party of "family values" choosing Gingrich/Cain.....gives oxymoron a whole new depth of meaning. Ye Gods!
How quickly have you conservatives wiped from your minds Gingrich's ethics troubles, his "womanizing" troubles, his loose cannon mouth? And Cain...........could you seriously contemplate HIM in proximity to the nuclear football? Well, on second thought, apparently you guys were willing to have Sarah Palin in that position, so..........................
Ah, be still, my heart, at the very IDEA of Gingrich/Cain.....the possibilities astound me, although pretty much all in the way that would pretty much guarantee a second term for President Obama. Yep, the party of "family values" choosing Gingrich/Cain.....gives oxymoron a whole new depth of meaning. Ye Gods!
How quickly have you conservatives wiped from your minds Gingrich's ethics troubles, his "womanizing" troubles, his loose cannon mouth? And Cain...........could you seriously contemplate HIM in proximity to the nuclear football? Well, on second thought, apparently you guys were willing to have Sarah Palin in that position, so..........................
Ethics are sort of a slippery slope aren't they? President Clinton's ethical lapses are legendary, yet he will be remembered as a successful President.
What qualities do we want to see in a President, saintliness, or competence? I'll stick with the latter, and in my mind Gingrich is about as competent as they come. Throw in the apoplexy Cain would invoke in liberals and you've got a perfect combination. :D
I think we're a bit more likely to overlook some indiscretions if the rest of their behavior/record is good.
Iris Lily and Alan........you're both intelligent people. I can't understand AT ALL that you would vote for Cain, unless its just a
matter of getting a republican in office, no matter how/who.
I think we're a bit more likely to overlook some indiscretions if the rest of their behavior/record is good.
Iris Lily and Alan........you're both intelligent people. I can't understand AT ALL that you would vote for Cain, unless its just a
matter of getting a republican in office, no matter how/who.
I felt the same way about the Obama/Biden ticket although never felt the need to question other's intelligence for backing them. Thanks for pointing out why politics are so divisive.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 9:04am
I felt the same way about the Obama/Biden ticket although never felt the need to question other's intelligence for backing them. Thanks for pointing out why politics are so divisive.
Alan, don't you want a leader that you think at least stands a chance of beating you in Historical, Political, Current Events Trivia ?
I'd put $20 on you beating Cain, Bachman, Perry, Palin at Trivial Pursuit.
I'm not throwing Gingrich in there as he was hired by FreddyMac as a 'historical consultant'.
Uz-becky-becky-stan-stan, I mean really - I like the idea of a protest candidacy as much as the next gal, but this is getting beyond ridiculous.
That's true Alan.....about being divisive. I guess the rule of "No religion or politics" in many settings is there for a reason!
I didn't mean to insult you. Its just hard for me to understand how people such as you and Iris Lily, who are really up on politics and
are quite intelligent, could want a guy who doesn't seem to know a fraction of what you know about politics.
iris lily
11-17-11, 9:52am
CathyA, It's about blowing old pols and the old pol system out of the water.
Now that Newt, he's an old pol, but he's an old pol who can charm and debate with the best of them--only he can do it without a teleprompter.
reader99
11-17-11, 10:10am
Uz-becky-becky-stan-stan, I mean really - I like the idea of a protest candidacy as much as the next gal, but this is getting beyond ridiculous.
That has me worried as well. When I thought he was making a place up to make a point it was bad enough, but Uzbekistan is a real place, so now there's a real nation with a reason to feel insulted.
Cain seems to beleive that all he needs is a plan for the domestic side, but it's a big world and we need someone who can navigate the international scene with grace.
puglogic
11-17-11, 10:15am
Throw in the apoplexy Cain would invoke in liberals and you've got a perfect combination. :D
Such hatefulness. I couldn't even imagine living a life centered on p*ssing off people who disagree with me, gleefully rubbing my hands together at every gotcha. What a waste of time it would be.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 10:19am
CathyA, It's about blowing old pols and the old pol system out of the water.
Now that Newt, he's an old pol, but he's an old pol who can charm and debate with the best of them--only he can do it without a teleprompter.
I keep hearing about Obama and the teleprompter and didn't really know what the deal was....
Here are the top 3 things that come up when I quickly Googled 'Obama and Teleprompter' to learn more - judge for yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-mock-obamas-teleprompter-use/2011/10/18/gIQA6hEivL_story.html
http://www.teleprompterpresident.com/
http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
Such hatefulness. I couldn't even imagine living a life centered on p*ssing off people who disagree with me, gleefully rubbing my hands together at every gotcha. What a waste of time it would be.
Good point, and completely accurate. I've been treating myself to the first half hour of Morning Joe on MSNBC each morning this week. From what I've seen so far, there's about 15 minutes of each first half hour dedicated to disparaging Herman Cain. I should really stop watching those liberal media outlets, it's starting to rub off.
I keep hearing about Obama and the teleprompter and didn't really know what the deal was....
Here are the top 3 things that come up when I quickly Googled 'Obama and Teleprompter' to learn more - judge for yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-mock-obamas-teleprompter-use/2011/10/18/gIQA6hEivL_story.html
http://www.teleprompterpresident.com/
http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
I think the real point is that when you watch President Obama give a prepared speech, read off his teleprompter, he's pretty good. But put him in an unscripted environment and he loses all his "gives good speech" cred.
Newt, on the other hand....
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 10:53am
Good point, and completely accurate. I've been treating myself to the first half hour of Morning Joe on MSNBC each morning this week. From what I've seen so far, there's about 15 minutes of each first half hour dedicated to disparaging Herman Cain. I should really stop watching those liberal media outlets, it's starting to rub off.
Yeah - Cain has got ol' Joe hot under the collar and has made him go insane in the membrane this week for sure! (I don't even count Mika's eye rolling)
Joe's not a liberal though, Willy's not a liberal, many of their guests aren't liberal.
I can't believe there aren't better candidates stepping forward to carry the conservatives banner.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 11:22am
I think the real point is that when you watch President Obama give a prepared speech, read off his teleprompter, he's pretty good. But put him in an unscripted environment and he loses all his "gives good speech" cred.
Newt, on the other hand....
Newt is blessed with a silver tongue that's for sure.
Re: Obama, maybe he realizes the weight of his words and that he stinks at off the cuff?
Don't even get me started on Obama and his speeches - so over that.
It's hard to find the whole package.
Sometimes you need the ability to get people in a backroom and twist hard to make things happen.
I mean that in the metaphorical sense.
Spartana
11-17-11, 11:28am
SPartana that is a very cute photo of you and the boys, nice!
Yes I had very un-sisterly thoughts about the one in the glasses :-)!
But thoughts are different from actions (although Jimmy "I have lust in my heart" Carter might disagree) and choosing to act in an appropriate way when you are with co-workers is all about self-control as well as respect. Traits that I would want in a pres.. Men and women (and gay people) are intermixed at every level in the work place now, and are often put in situations where they are alone with their co-workers and bosses so trying to NEVER be in a situation where you are alone with someone is unrealilistic. No one should even have tothink that something like that would even happen - ever. The thought of sexual harrassment has never entered my head when I was alone with male (or gay female) co-workers or bosses. Maybe that's naive, but it's just not a thought that occurs to me.
Spartana
11-17-11, 11:33am
Ah, be still, my heart, at the very IDEA of Gingrich/Cain.....the possibilities astound me,
My thoughts exactly! Time to look up the best route to Canada :-)! I'm voting Obama myself but am curious who people on "The Dark Side" :devil: (as well as the dems) would vote for if the Rep. primaries were held today. I'd go with Mit myself.
Re: Obama, maybe he realizes the weight of his words and that he stinks at off the cuff?
Don't even get me started on Obama and his speeches - so over that.
It's hard to find the whole package....
Or maybe he's nothing more than an empty suit? Perhaps a popular cut with a designer label, yet entirely the wrong size? Maybe....
Spartana
11-17-11, 11:46am
Ethics are sort of a slippery slope aren't they? President Clinton's ethical lapses are legendary, yet he will be remembered as a successful President.
What qualities do we want to see in a President, saintliness, or competence? I'll stick with the latter, and in my mind Gingrich is about as competent as they come. Throw in the apoplexy Cain would invoke in liberals and you've got a perfect combination. :D
Hmmm... Hilter had alot of confidence. As did Mussolini, Napolean , Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Castro, and a few others I can think of :-)! I do think morals and ethics are very important in an elected representative because they show that persons character - self control, compassion, respect, honor,integrity, the ability to think about the consequenses of their actions, etc... - things that I would want in a candidate. Someone who can't control him or her self, can't control a country and it's people IMHO.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 11:51am
Huntsman --- to Spartana ? of voting for Rep primary question
I'm a registered independent though.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 11:59am
Or maybe he's nothing more than an empty suit? Perhaps a popular cut with a designer label, yet entirely the wrong size? Maybe....
Does he wear poorly tailored suits along with using a teleprompter too?
At least you're not calling him Obammy, Obongo, or the Anti-Christ which is all the rage in my hometown newspaper's comment section.
Does he wear poorly tailored suits along with using a teleprompter too?
Not to my knowledge, just thinking that a very nice suit that looks good in the window display may be too small to wear in public.
At least you're not calling him Obammy, Obongo, or the Anti-Christ which is all the rage in my hometown newspaper's comment section.
Hard to believe isn't it?
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 12:39pm
Actually not hard to believe at all if you knew my hometown.
Well, Obama won the election fair and square, no supreme court decision needed.
We know for certain he will be running in 2012.
Now we just need to see who the other team is going to put forward and then duke it out.
If you are looking for someone to go to the mats for Obama. I don't think it will be me, but he sure beats the pants off what the the repub.s are putting forward right now, for me.
Edit to add - Didn't mean to put in 'beat the pants off of' but what a delicious accident since the whole beginning of this thread is Herman Cain and his alleged need to get the pants off of others.
Good point, and completely accurate. I've been treating myself to the first half hour of Morning Joe on MSNBC each morning this week. From what I've seen so far, there's about 15 minutes of each first half hour dedicated to disparaging Herman Cain. I should really stop watching those liberal media outlets, it's starting to rub off.
Wow, well played Alan. When a democrat does it it's those nasty, divisive democrats. When a republican, such as yourself does it, it's .....those nasty divisive democrats! No one noticed the slight of hand.
Are we dizzy yet?
Iris Lily says "It's about blowing old pols and the old pol system out of the water."
I too would like to see radical changes, but if some of these GOP runners were elected, I
fear it would be "out of the frying pan, into the fire". It might be different........but different
isn't always good in the ways we would like.
Wow, well played Alan. When a democrat does it it's those nasty, divisive democrats. When a republican, such as yourself does it, it's .....those nasty divisive democrats! No one noticed the slight of hand.
Are we dizzy yet?
I didn't say anything about Democrats, Joe Scarborough is actually a former Republican Congressman. What I said was "liberal media outlets", meaning MSNBC.
The point was, and you'll have to follow the thread progression to realize that, Cain has produced a firestorm of people "gleefully rubbing their hands together at every gotcha", to paraphrase puglogic. Just pointing out that it can rub off on others. So, no "sleight of hand", just friendly discussion.
Also, I have a hard time with party labels such as Democrat or Republican. Not for others, but certainly for myself. In theory the Republican Party represents my interests more thoroughly than the Democrats, but all in all, I'd rather just be considered a conservative.
I think the real point is that when you watch President Obama give a prepared speech, read off his teleprompter, he's pretty good. But put him in an unscripted environment and he loses all his "gives good speech" cred.
Newt, on the other hand....
Right. Because no one else in all of history used a teleprompter? Because, for lack of a real criticism of the man we will get our knickers all a twitter over his use of a teleprompter? Gee, you know, throughout history politicians have used notes extensively (Sarah Palin likes to use a little trick she learned in jr. high) but that doesn't matter. He used a TELEPROMPTOR! We don't want our President using no stinking teleprompter. And while we are at it, he should use a rotary phone. Yea, And indoor plumbing is too good for him! I say bring back outhouses! And get rid of computers all together. And he can take a train when traveling across country. Boy, given a few minutes I can think of a whole bunch of stupid stuff to criticize him for using. Not like that Herman Cain. No sir......Oops!
http://protoplasm.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/cain-teleprompter.jpg
Or Mitt Romney
http://twicsy.com/i/qRXKF
And, really, Perry could use a teleprompter! Or write notes on his hand, like Sarah, or just rack your brain for anything, anything at all you've heard about Libya lately, like Cain.
Right. Because no one else in all of history used a teleprompter? Because, for lack of a real criticism of the man we will get our knickers all a twitter over his use of a teleprompter? Gee, you know, throughout history politicians have used notes extensively (Sarah Palin likes to use a little trick she learned in jr. high) but that doesn't matter. He used a TELEPROMPTOR!
Again, you need to follow the progression of a discussion in order to evaluate specific out-takes. The teleprompter discussion in this thread has to do with one of the differences between President Obama and Newt Gingrich. Newt is a much better extemporaneous speaker.
I believe teleprompter's to be a very good tool for all public speakers, it's no slur to point out that some people need them more than others.
I didn't say anything about Democrats, Joe Scarborough is actually a former Republican Congressman. What I said was "liberal media outlets", meaning MSNBC.
The point was, and you'll have to follow the thread progression to realize that, Cain has produced a firestorm of people "gleefully rubbing their hands together at every gotcha", to paraphrase puglogic. Just pointing out that it can rub off on others. So, no "sleight of hand", just friendly discussion.
Also, I have a hard time with party labels such as Democrat or Republican. Not for others, but certainly for myself. In theory the Republican Party represents my interests more thoroughly than the Democrats, but all in all, I'd rather just be considered a conservative.
It's not glee at 'gotcha' moments. it's more like standing with mouths open in stunned silence. How can this person be considered anything other than a colossal joke? How do conservatives expect anyone to take them seriously if this is who they want to represent them? Come on! Work with us here. why can't you all come up with a real, smart, aware, capable, educated candidate? Give us someone who understands economics, and world politics, and law and the nuances it requires to work with people. Even people with breasts.
I realize smart and educated are dirty words to the right, but we are talking about the leader of the free world here. We really aren't looking for someone who can bake a mean pizza. It just blows me away how conservatives have Mitt Romney and John Huntsman, yet Perry and Bachmann and Cain are the ones getting the standing ovation.
To tell you the truth (conspiracy theory following) I'm beginning to believe republicans don't really want the white House back because they know they could never fix what they trashed to begin with, and they also know that Obama IS doing what is necessary, and that his path IS the right one, and they are secretly relieved.
Again, you need to follow the progression of a discussion in order to evaluate specific out-takes. The teleprompter discussion in this thread has to do with one of the differences between President Obama and Newt Gingrich. Newt is a much better extemporaneous speaker.
I believe teleprompter's to be a very good tool for all public speakers, it's no slur to point out that some people need them more than others.
No, it was brought up as a criticism of Obama. (Giggle giggle, snicker snicker) I have no problem following the thread, or the implied criticism. And if you think Newt doesn't use teleprompters...
It's not glee at 'gotcha' moments. it's more like standing with mouths open in stunned silence. How can this person be considered anything other than a colossal joke? How do conservatives expect anyone to take them seriously if this is who they want to represent them? Come on! Work with us here. why can't you all come up with a real, smart, aware, capable, educated candidate? Give us someone who understands economics, and world politics, and law and the nuances it requires to work with people. Even people with breasts.
I realize smart and educated are dirty words to the right, but we are talking about the leader of the free world here. We really aren't looking for someone who can bake a mean pizza. It just blows me away how conservatives have Mitt Romney and John Huntsman, yet Perry and Bachmann and Cain are the ones getting the standing ovation.
To tell you the truth (conspiracy theory following) I'm beginning to believe republicans don't really want the white House back because they know they could never fix what they trashed to begin with, and they also know that Obama IS doing what is necessary, and that his path IS the right one, and they are secretly relieved.
Thanks Peggy for regurgitating the same things the media throws at us every day in their efforts to choose our candidates for us. I'm reminded again of the Borg. But we've already had that discussion, haven't we?
No, it was brought up as a criticism of Obama. (Giggle giggle, snicker snicker) I have no problem following the thread, or the implied criticism. And if you think Newt doesn't use teleprompters...
Please Peggy, don't attribute unspoken thoughts to me. I said "extemporaneous", which means spoken without preparation, no teleprompters involved. You're focusing on the wrong things.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 4:33pm
So why don't Santorum or Ron Paul get more traction in the polls?
They're conservative enough for repub. primary politics, right?
From afar they seem 20 times more competent than Bachman, Perry, Cain....
So why don't Santorum or Ron Paul get more traction in the polls?
They're conservative enough for repub. primary politics, right?
From afar they seem 20 times more competent than Bachman, Perry, Cain....
I don't know. Ask the networks why they're ignored in the televised debates.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 4:53pm
I don't know. Ask the networks why they're ignored in the televised debates.
Because they are behind in the polls, I think ????
At some point it's like a dog chasing it's tail.
If conservative base would flock to Santorum/Paul the media would follow.
Media will follow wherever the story goes.
How are Santorum or Paul treated in more right media? Do they get more airtime in general? Rush or Fox -- I don't listen to them so I don't know.
Because they are behind in the polls, I think ????
At some point it's like a dog chasing it's tail.
If conservative base would flock to Santorum/Paul the media would follow.
Media will follow wherever the story goes.
How are Santorum or Paul treated in more right media? Do they get more airtime in general? Rush or Fox -- I don't listen to them so I don't know.
I try to view and read news from a variety of media and honestly don't see any significant coverage of them anywhere. I believe that all media is in the business of entertainment moreso than information. Gotcha's, big egos and outsized personalities rule the day I'm afraid.
Consider this forum as a microcosm. Do they get any coverage here?
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 7:31pm
If Santorum or Paul were leading the pack they would get covered here.
It's only natural that whoever is getting close to being a real option for leader of the free world is going to get the fine tooth comb treatment.
I really don't think conservatives are letting the 'lamestream' media pick their candidates for them. They may be letting Rush or Fox or who the heck is that guy that everyone is in blood pact with, Grover Nordquist?
iris lily
11-17-11, 9:22pm
... or who the heck is that guy that everyone is in blood pact with, Grover Nordquist?
I don't even know who that is.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 9:23pm
And the Gothcha's they are out there I'm sure, but I don't think any of the following come under the heading of 'Gotcha' - I think they are legitimate questions that candidates should be prepared to answer on a dime:
- Of a VP Candidate - What newspapers, publications do you read regularly?
- Of a prez candidate - What do you think of Libya and do you agree with current prez's action in Libya?
- Of a prez candidate being pushed to name the 3rd gov department he would do away with in a debate
They are human and they do make errors and I couldn't imagine what kind of fortitude it takes to do modern day campaigning.... but I feel like the 3 questions above are things that anyone that participates on this forum could answer in their sleep... or at least come up with a better polished put off answer than the above gave
iris lily
11-17-11, 9:40pm
And the Gothcha's they are out there I'm sure, but I don't think any of the following come under the heading of 'Gotcha' - I think they are legitimate questions that candidates should be prepared to answer on a dime:
- Of a VP Candidate - What newspapers, publications do you read regularly?
- Of a prez candidate - What do you think of Libya and do you agree with current prez's action in Libya?
- Of a prez candidate being pushed to name the 3rd gov department he would do away with in a debate
They are human and they do make errors and I couldn't imagine what kind of fortitude it takes to do modern day campaigning.... but I feel like the 3 questions above are things that anyone that participates on this forum could answer in their sleep... or at least come up with a better polished put off answer than the above gave
Sure, those are reasonable questions but since we are dealing with humans not sure that we should expect coherent answers at all times and in all situations. The President has the luxury of handlers and shielders and yes teleprompters (yes peggy! that was me who made the sly reference) but I don't mean just Obama, I mean anyone in the POTUS Seat.
Example: today I could not even talk to employee A about an issue I knew about 2 weeks ago because I still had vacation head, and when employee B asked me about another issue, I was still buried in employee A's issue and gave a (nonsensical) answer.
I actually do not think that President Obama is smooth orator, and I was willing to concede that he was such, that was before I heard him speak. I get the feeling that his "ahs" and accent if kind of studied and done in an attempt to be casual/folksy, but I could be wrong. I'm sure that if Rick Perry had talked about the 54th state or whatever that Obama gaffe was during the hectic days of pre-protection, we would have heard about that ad naseum as well. I am also sure that Obama, when prepared and enthusiastic about his subject, can give a moving, effective speech, that's just not of the time.
And the Gothcha's they are out there I'm sure, but I don't think any of the following come under the heading of 'Gotcha' - I think they are legitimate questions that candidates should be prepared to answer on a dime:
- Of a VP Candidate - What newspapers, publications do you read regularly?
- Of a prez candidate - What do you think of Libya and do you agree with current prez's action in Libya?
- Of a prez candidate being pushed to name the 3rd gov department he would do away with in a debate
They are human and they do make errors and I couldn't imagine what kind of fortitude it takes to do modern day campaigning.... but I feel like the 3 questions above are things that anyone that participates on this forum could answer in their sleep... or at least come up with a better polished put off answer than the above gave
I agree that people do make errors, but I'm always amused that the media, and by constant exposure, the public, hold different people to different standards.
Just as an example, did you see this played over and over again in the media with the underlying implication that the speaker wasn't up to the task of answering a question or formulating a coherent thought? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&feature=related
I didn't.
iris lily
11-17-11, 10:05pm
I agree that people do make errors, but I'm always amused that the media, and by constant exposure, the public, hold different people to different standards.
Just as an example, did you see this played over and over again in the media with the underlying implication that the speaker wasn't up to the task of answering a question or formulating a coherent thought? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&feature=related
I didn't.
What the hell WILL it cost, Candidate Obama?!!???? I'd forgotten about this one.
loosechickens
11-17-11, 11:00pm
Well, anyone who has ever listened to one of President Obama's news conferences, where he is able to speak articulately, in depth and with great complexity about a huge number of issues and questions, would be hard put to keep putting out the canard that the man can't speak without a teleprompter. Of course, Presidents use teleprompters for speeches.....they all do, but the idea that President Obama does not have a great depth of understanding of complex issues and can discuss them at length and with a large measure of complexity is simply not listening, or determined to simply believe the story going on in their own heads as opposed to the factual demonstration before them.
Iris Lily, if a person is so uninformed as to be unaware of who Grover Norquist is, I would seriously question their ability to make informed decisions about which party and/or candidates to support. Since the largest number of the candidates you seem to feel positive toward are people influenced by and beholden to him, it behooves you to do a bit of Googling to get up to speed. JMHO.
Newt Gingrich is NOT going to stand up to the spotlight that will shine on him now that he's leading in some polls. How quickly you forget that it was your own folks who practically cashiered the guy for lies, ethical violations, etc., and how anyone who thinks their party stands for "family values" can support this man just amazes me.
Is Gingrich smart? Yes. Is he informed? Yes. Does he have many years of insider Washington D.C. experience, both in government and in lobbying? Yes. Is he a loose cannon? Is he lacking in ethics? Yes. Does he in any way demonstrate good family values in his private life over a number of years? A resounding NO. And when even someone like Jack Abramoff says he's corrupt (and who should know better than him?), it's pretty obvious that a Gingrich White House would be for sale to the highest bidder.
I used to BE a Republican. When the social conservatives became ascendant in the Republican Party and it moved far to the right into John Birch Society territory, right out from under me, I quit the party. But the idea that the base of the Republican Party is ignoring people like Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman in favor of some of the almost laughable "candidates of the week" they have fallen in love with, would truly embarass me, were I still a Republican. I honestly feel sorry for thinking Republicans that they've kind of dragged the bottom to come up with this crop of candidates. Again, JMHO. But I'm glad that you're the ones stuck with them, and hope with everything I've got that the rest of us don't end up stuck with one of them ourselves.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 11:04pm
I agree that people do make errors, but I'm always amused that the media, and by constant exposure, the public, hold different people to different standards.
Just as an example, did you see this played over and over again in the media with the underlying implication that the speaker wasn't up to the task of answering a question or formulating a coherent thought? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&feature=related
I didn't.
Alan - come on, you can come up with something better than that video or maybe there's more to it beyond the 1:13 mark where it ends.
I watched it and it sounds like he's being heckled/questioned from the crowd and he's trying to finish his thought before moving on to questions.
He's saying effective preventative care is cheaper than people without health insurance glutting up ER rooms for things that are not emergencies, but turn into emergencies b/c of lack of basic care.
The reason you didn't see it played over and over again is b/c it's not a total gaffe.
mtnlaurel
11-17-11, 11:16pm
I get the feeling that his [Obama's] "ahs" and accent is kind of studied and done in an attempt to be casual/folksy, but I could be wrong.
Nope, I think you're right and I'm not anti-Obama. I couldn't agree with you more Iris Lily, totally annoying. Hillary Clinton was even worse at this if you ask me.
iris lily
11-17-11, 11:52pm
...Iris Lily, if a person is so uninformed as to be unaware of who Grover Norquist is, I would seriously question their ability to make informed decisions about which party and/or candidates to support. Since the largest number of the candidates you seem to feel positive toward are people influenced by and beholden to him, it behooves you to do a bit of Googling to get up to speed. JMHO.
...
That pretty much guarantees that I won't.
mtnlaurel
11-18-11, 12:16am
That pretty much guarantees that I won't.
Well I just MtnLaurel'd it and Grover Nordquist has a No Tax Pledge that a large number of Republicans have signed.
That is no tax increase of any kind under any circumstance.
I am totally open to anyone clearing up my definition above and putting it in better context.
There is something about that that just chaps the crap out of me for some reason. Why are legislators representing a constituency putting an ideologue above the welfare of the nation?
I mean really, and people are concerned about Mitt's allegiance to LDS ????? .... to me Grover Nordquist is much more dangerous than the nice, friendly, family-centered LDS people
Folks, we're in a bit of a jam here - you're gonna' have to cut spending AND raise revenue(taxes) without stifling potential growth to close the 25%/15% gap. It's frickin' math.
iris lily
11-18-11, 1:54am
I am not committed to "no more taxes no matter what."
But they'd better be reducing the budget and streamlining things and cutting cutting cutting BEFORE thye insist on a tax hike. If I really thought that higher taxes would ever truly SOLVE something, I might well cough it up.
mtnlaurel
11-18-11, 8:29am
It's like the "Tastes Great" - "No It's Less Filling" commercials
...... No guys, It tastes great AND it is less filling too.
It can be both at the same time, carefully executed for a full bodied light taste.
And I couldn't agree with you more Iris Lily on real, meaningful cuts of gov fat
Here's the link to learn more from the horse's mouth on the Nordquist pledge:
www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge
All Repub. member of House and Senate have signed it except for:
6 GOP U.S. House NonPledge Signers:
NY-24 Richard Hanna
GA-07 Rob Woodall
PA-19 Todd Russell Platts
VA-01 Rob Wittman
VA-10 Frank Wolf
KS-03 Kevin Yoder
7 GOP U.S. Senate Pledge Non-Signers:
IN-Sen Richard Lugar
IA-Sen Charles Grassley
ME- Sen Olympia Snowe
ME- Sen Susan Collins
MS-Sen Thad Cochran
WY- Sen John Barrasso
ND-Sen John Hoeven
3 Dems have signed it
Here is the Pledge:
Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____
district of the) state of ______ and to the American
people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts
to increase the marginal income tax rate for
individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any
net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further
reducing tax rates.
Now I've got to learn what that means.
Learning about Nordquist for myself has been on my ToDo list for quite some time as I feel he is a contributor to the politicians not sitting down and sticking with it and working some crap out for our country. All of this walking away from negotiations is unsettling to the economy.
Maybe I will sink my teeth into it today before I:
straighten house/do load of laundry, go volunteer at my son's school this afternoon, then take kids to a free art session at high school (b/c I find the art curriculum at son's public school lacking since we have no choice but pub school really since DH, main bread winner, MBA toter, golf player who was unemployed 2008-2010 and had to accept job in area of country neither of us have ever considered ever and is crazy expensive, hubby has 'millionaire next door' type parents that have tagged on at least 5-7 more yrs. of work before retiring since their nest eggs took too great of a hit during Grt Recession - I know, waaaa, cry me a river, all in all we've got it pretty damn good) all this wrapped up by Family Fun Night at son's school. And yes, my weekends now revolve around my son's travel soccer team, church choirs & any free cultural or library event I can get us to.
So yes, I do rely on some opinionators to crunch some issues for me. However, this Nordquist thing is something I feel I need to digest for myself and see where I stand, I feel that strongly about it.
My point being I have somehow morphed from a Follow Your Bliss person (How many Runs can I get in today) to the politically coveted Soccer Mom that strategists salivate over .... and I wouldn't touch today's national Repub party with a 10 ft. pole. On national level, I think many of them are just flat out obstructionists and doing a disservice to our nation. I did vote some repub in this month's election on local level.
(And in all honesty it's hard for me to vote Repub too often b/c I am not for overturning Roe v. Wade.)
Obviously I've let myself get worked up into a tizzy. I guess because I feel so underrepresented and this simple living board is the only place I can freely unload - I know, it's sad. Although I may be a Santelli Tea Partier at heart, I'm not the Moral Majority glommed up Tea Partier. Although I agree with spirit of OWS and see the ruin that corporate greed has cost this country and my family, I don't identify with a majority of the protesters and their Gen. Caucus Process and why the heck are they tying up NYC traffic and going to the Subways with bullhorns to accost poor schmucks (like me) that can't afford drivers or taxis. The Repubs don't speak for me. I'm not a Dem - I think their big umbrella philosophies are soft, not cost effective and in general they suffer from ineffective messaging.
And then to see Alan, who's sharp as a tac, have to go to the mats for these goofs that are better suited for local/state politics.... My hats off to you for staying true.
It just pisses me off. Maybe I'm just mad b/c I wish I had a cause that spoke for me.
I'm still pushing for my made up CCOCS (Compassionate Calculator Owners with Common Sense) :) or maybe they just need to come up with a RINO party for me to join ??????
Thanks Peggy for regurgitating the same things the media throws at us every day in their efforts to choose our candidates for us. I'm reminded again of the Borg. But we've already had that discussion, haven't we?
Well, you're right. Conservatives do act a bit like Borg, don't they.
Also, I've come to believe you are right about Herman Cain. He IS the best that the right can put forth. No other person has his grasp of economics or foreign policy, or his ability to understand the nuances of political/society interaction. He IS the best and brightest conservatives have to offer. Especially since Sarah Palin has decided to not be in the race. (and I hear he makes a really mean pizza too. A bonus!)
Go Cain! And Perry/Bachmann. Dang, if only there was a way to get all three on a ticket!
Here is the Pledge:
Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____
district of the) state of ______ and to the American
people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts
to increase the marginal income tax rate for
individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any
net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further
reducing tax rates.
Now I've got to learn what that means.
It's really quite simple. It's an effort to force government to live within it's means. There will never be significant spending cuts as long as we can continually up the ante by increasing taxes.
I think if you asked the average Republican/Conservative/Tea Partier or other reviled demographic, they'd say that if we need to raise taxes after eliminating waste/fraud/abuse/social meddling and corruption, they'd be ok with it. It just shouldn't be the only option.
Well, you're right. Conservatives do act a bit like Borg, don't they.
Also, I've come to believe you are right about Herman Cain. He IS the best that the right can put forth. No other person has his grasp of economics or foreign policy, or his ability to understand the nuances of political/society interaction. He IS the best and brightest conservatives have to offer. Especially since Sarah Palin has decided to not be in the race. (and I hear he makes a really mean pizza too. A bonus!)
Go Cain! And Perry/Bachmann. Dang, if only there was a way to get all three on a ticket!
Peggy, I don't think I've ever told you how much I appreciate your over the top posts. They're always entertaining. :laff:
iris lily
11-18-11, 10:35am
mtnlaurel, I am not going to obsess about the details. I know that the Super Committee is charged with a Herculean task due Nov 23, in fact, I've got that gubmnt budget schedule pinned to my refrigerator because it matters to me, but the day to day stuff, not interested.
So come back here and let us know your opinion. You can be my "opinionator" who crunches some info for me and consequently lays out a reasoned POV.
Peggy, I don't think I've ever told you how much I appreciate your over the top posts. They're always entertaining. :laff:
Dude, I'm just agreeing with you. Cain is the best that the republicans have. You're a smart guy. If you say he is the one to best represent you and the conservative/republican/tea party folks then I'm willing to accept that. I hope you start some discussions that dive a little deeper into Herman Cain, the man and his ideas. Here, I'll start.
"And I'm here to tell you, the reaction that I'm getting around the country, people are sick and tired of this word in Washington, compromise. This is why nothing ever gets done."
Herman Cain
Hmm...Obama has shown a willingness to compromise, to work with all of congress, not just democrats. And even though the republicans have refused to work with him at each and every turn, he has managed to get some important things done. After all, the President is EVERYONE'S President. He doesn't just work for ONE party.
Herman Cain isn't all about that, although even casual observers would have noticed the complete lack of compromise on the part of the republicans, Cain believes they should have refused to so much as give a democrat the time of day, apparently, since that seems to be all the republicans have given.
How do you see his administration going forward unless he has a super majority like Bush had, and simply ram stuff down every one's throats? Or rather a congress that has plenty of democrats who are willing to compromise. Well, he certainly must be talking about the democrats since the republicans NEVER compromise. Do you think he wants the democrats to stop compromising? How's that going to work? They are the only ones who WILL compromise.
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/herman_cain.html#ixzz1e4Y1zSMG
Is compromise always good? If you were to suggest that I run my household finances in such a way that I bankrupt myself within a year, and in an effort to compromise, I agree to run it in such a way as to delay that by six months, have I achieved something noble?
In that case I'd prefer to make some hard choices now and take the possibility of bankruptcy off the table rather than compromise with you. I think that's the responsible thing to do.
That's pretty much how I see the calls for compromise coming from the left and although you may disagree, that doesn't make you right.
mtnlaurel
11-18-11, 11:19am
To piggyback Peggy... from what I understand, many of ideas that Repub leadership have walked away from are their own dang repub ideas that Obama has commandeered ... that's why Obama is so in dutch with his base and has to go back out to do Rock Star circuit.
mtnlaurel
11-18-11, 11:29am
mtnlaurel, I am not going to obsess about the details. I know that the Super Committee is charged with a Herculean task due Nov 23, in fact, I've got that gubmnt budget schedule pinned to my refrigerator because it matters to me, but the day to day stuff, not interested.
So come back here and let us know your opinion. You can be my "opinionator" who crunches some info for me and consequently lays out a reasoned POV.
I've got a jammed packed weekend with kid/family stuff, but I really am going to challenge myself to put 2 hrs towards it early next week.
I bet a dollar to a donut that we are all going to hear about this (Nordquist Pledge) in upcoming news cycle ad naseum on all our preferred news vendor outlets as SuperCommittee d-day looms.
BTW what a stupid name for something - SuperCommittee..... anyone who has ever crossed an HOA committee or school committee or church committee just has to shake their heads in wonder
Re: Compromise.... Far Right is never going to convince entirety of US to follow them, Far Left is never going to convince going their way --- and some how the mushy middle has become 'Left'
The only answer would be a civil war and we're too involved in other countries' civil wars right now to have our own.
Is compromise always good? If you were to suggest that I run my household finances in such a way that I bankrupt myself within a year, and in an effort to compromise, I agree to run it in such a way as to delay that by six months, have I achieved something noble?
In that case I'd prefer to make some hard choices now and take the possibility of bankruptcy off the table rather than compromise with you. I think that's the responsible thing to do.
That's pretty much how I see the calls for compromise coming from the left and although you may disagree, that doesn't make you right.
Well any discussion that talks about "reducing deficits" (which is the talk from both sides) is just delaying.
I think the major issue is "bankruptcy" is inevitable - the only talk out there is how fast do we continue to increase the debt. The right has taken the option of increasing revenue through higher taxes (although it looks like they're ready to gut middle class deductions for increased tax revenue) off the table. Which only leaves the option of gutting the massive amount of money our government pumps into the economy every year.
The "fix" is living within our means AND paying down the national debt - the cost of that will be reducing our economy to 3rd world status and plunging the world into depression. Basically the cure is going to kill the patient - but the patient will die regardless.
So when do we start? So far Congress has said "not today" - over and over and over. Even though we're going down the toilet there's still a lot of money to hand out.
So when do we start? So far Congress has said "not today" - over and over and over.
Cut the military budget 90%, tomorrow.
The "fix" is living within our means AND paying down the national debt - the cost of that will be reducing our economy to 3rd world status and plunging the world into depression. Basically the cure is going to kill the patient - but the patient will die regardless.
I'm not a doom & gloomer so I'll have to disagree with that prediction. I believe we just need to take a hard and realistic look at what we can support and what we can't, then follow through with a plan.
The thing that confuses me more than anything is that we can see our future in Greece, Italy and France right now, and yet we're still just not willing to veer off the same course that got them into their predicament.
I think the major issue is "bankruptcy" is inevitable - the only talk out there is how fast do we continue to increase the debt.
Not to nit-pic, but the US will never go bankrupt. We can print all the money we need to pay bills. Not that that is a reasonable or even sane thing to do, but as a last resort it would stave off bankruptcy.
Cut the military budget 90%, tomorrow.
+1 The military should protect our shores only. Now we are sending troops to Australia. What for?
Cut the military budget 90%, tomorrow.
Why wait until tomorrow? :-)
Definitely.
Not to nit-pic, but the US will never go bankrupt. We can print all the money we need to pay bills. Not that that is a reasonable or even sane thing to do, but as a last resort it would stave off bankruptcy.
And why would this work for the US but not work for places like Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Italy, etc.?
But I thought the whole point of cutting spending is not printing all the money we need - isn't like 36% or something of all the money spent by the government created from debt now? How do we stop printing money without defaulting? Outside of the downgrading to 3rd world status I don't see how.
I'm not a doom & gloomer so I'll have to disagree with that prediction. I believe we just need to take a hard and realistic look at what we can support and what we can't, then follow through with a plan.
I don't want to be a doom & gloomer. But I think the Humpty Dumpty scenario is in play here - after a point some things just can't be fixed. What you say is valid and will likely be the course of action taken, but that in itself will also be just delaying.
loosechickens
11-18-11, 3:17pm
One important thing to remember about people like Grover Norquist is that it's not that they want a better government, a more efficient and effective government......they really want little to no government, a rampaging free market economy and privatization of pretty much everything.
One of his more "famous" quotes involves "starving the government of income until we can get it small enough to drown it in the bathtub" (paraphrase, but pretty close to his actual words if you look them up).
I just think that most people in this country do not really WANT that far right, absoluteist view of government. We want government to do its job, answer to the vast majority of our citizens instead of the very few, extremely wealthy and powerful who can buy politicians and tilt the playing field ever more firmly in their direction.
It is not helpful to refuse to compromise. It is not helpful not to see balance in the need to both reduce waste and unnecessary spending in government while at the same time ensuring revenue to keep our country healthy, and our infrastructure running smoothly. America was once the envy of the world in our infrastructure, roads, bridges, public schools, universities, safe food supply, consumer and worker protections.....we got VALUE for our taxes, and a far more stable economy and a healthy, vibrant middle class. Today, we are sliding, with these kinds of policies, very quickly into the pattern more indicative of Third World countries, with a hugely wealthy top few percent, more and more people slipping into poverty from the middle class, and a slowly (and sometimes not so slowly) disappearing middle class, which is really the backbone of a stable democracy.
People realize something is wrong....the Tea Partiers blame the government, the Occupy Wall Street folks blame big corporations, but the truth is kind of both, and heaven help the movers and shakers if they are unable to continue to divide and polarize the two groups of ordinary people, and the Tea Party folks and the Occupy Wall Street folks realize that the unholy alliance between government and politicians and the tiny percentage of the wealthy who control how the rules and regulations get made and effect changes in both in their favor, are where the problems are. It's both government AND corporations and the money that buys influence and the folks who suck up the money and comply with favorable legislation.
Make no mistake. People like Grover Norquist do not want to improve government. They want to eliminate it. And the world they envision will be really, really nice for people like them, but not nearly so nice for the other 99% of us, although he and people like him have managed to get a pretty large number of people to follow them and support sawing off the limb they themselves are sitting upon.
edited for yet another danged typo.......
....Make no mistake. People like Grover Norquist do not want to improve government. They want to eliminate it. And the world they envision will be really, really nice for people like them, but not nearly so nice for the other 99% of us, although he and people like him have managed to get a pretty large number of people to follow them and support sawing off the limb they themselves are sitting upon.
So, Grover Norquist is not a statist. I suppose that's reason enough for some, but others, myself included, believe that the "unholy alliance" you speak of could be improved if the government was a little less intrusive in a free market society.
I believe that barring government intrusion, free markets ultimately correct themselves and keep individual players in check. Starving the government would improve the economic equilibrium of the country IMHO, although I'm admittedly not a statist.
So, Grover Norquist is not a statist. I suppose that's reason enough for some, but others, myself included, believe that the "unholy alliance" you speak of could be improved if the government was a little less intrusive in a free market society.
I believe that barring government intrusion, free markets ultimately correct themselves and keep individual players in check. Starving the government would improve the economic equilibrium of the country IMHO, although I'm admittedly not a statist.
Free markets caused the big housing crash!!! I worked in banking just before the big real estate crash. Our regulator was Federal Reserve Bank. I worked with the Fed because I was the chief compliance officer for a small 2 billion dollar bank. The lower level people at Fed were concerned about what was going on in the real estate market. They passed their concerns up the chain of command, But Allen Greenspan head of the Fed at that time and a free market guy said the market will correct it's self and did not allow the Fed to do anything. He was wright the markets did correct and take the whole country down with them. Greenspan eventually admitted he should have done something to stop the free market feeding frenzy.
Free markets must be controlled or greed takes control and everyone loses.
What 'government intrusions' are you talking about? You keep beating this horse without any real examples. I'm talking big examples that you think keep the big corporation and industry from using some of that money they are sitting on. Big examples that excuse all this hand wringing about the poor uber wealthy (if only we could funnel just a little more money to them!)
Are you talking about regulations that protect my health and safety? Regulations that help keep our air and waterways clean? I don't understand why you think a free for all market will be responsible and good! They're not responsible now! And you just want to give them free rein to rape and pillage and plunder. wow. You want an example of unregulated industry? Look at the coal industry just a few years back. Hell, look at it now. it's not all that regulated now.
If you don't trust the government, which I remind you is us, then what makes the big corporations any more trustworthy? We are the government and the government is us. Corporations are for themselves and their bottom line only. Period.
Let me ask you this. Do you like America? Do you like living in this country? Do you like going out and being able to breath, drive on pretty good highways (your picture is of you on a motorcycle on what looks like some pretty roadway) where all the other cars are being held to at least some standard of safety, go to the library, send your kids to school in a safe, police protected town? Wasn't it nice that when you went to the hospital with chest pains they didn't first check your wallet for insurance cards, and if you didn't have them they didn't kick you to the curb? And that the doctor who treated you had to prove some proficiency in his profession (and is held accountable if he turns out to be a bad doctor) Well, all those things cost. All of them, and that's just a small percentage of the things that affect you, that you benefit from. And you like to think of yourself as a 'low government' type person. And if you don't like what America is today, which country out there best reflects what you do want?
Here's a thought. Maybe we keep having trouble with the deficit because stuff costs! it takes an enormous amount of money to run a country, and a country as wonderful and full of opportunity as America is with a socially/politically/educationally progressive society costs a whole lot. We keep trying to run a modern 21st century country on a 20th century paycheck. We pay the lowest taxes of all the modern industrialized countries and we just can' do it anymore. If we truly like our country and want to live with all the amenities we have now, then maybe we need to pony up, fairly. (I'm looking at you , big corporations!)
Are there places to cut? Sure. As bae said, cut deeply into the military, and a little here and there. But there isn't as much fat as you think. Again, stuff costs. I really don't want to cut police forces, do you? I don't want libraries to shut down, or school classrooms at 50 kids. And I certainly don't want the food industry to police itself. And really, easing EPA standards isn't going to make your gas any cheaper, or the big oil companies less greedy, or do a single thing for the budget bottom line. And when you look at it honestly, we only really got into trouble when Bush cut taxes on the wealthy. (that and his war mongering)
So, here we are, back at the beginning. You tell me which of those things you are willing to sacrifice for the budget.
Most of those things can be achieved on the state level. Why do we need the federal government involved in libraries, police forces, school classrooms, etc?
Well they aren't involved in a huge way, but the point is that even a poor state should have a good library and decent schools. The problem with states taking care of everything is all states aren't created equal. Fine if you happen to live in a rich state, but poor states, many southern states who already have issues with schools and such, would only fall further and further into poverty. The folks who could, would move to a better funded state further sending the poor state into the hole. Only the very poor would be left in those states as they would not be able to move. It doesn't take a lot of thought to see this scenario happening.
that would pretty much make the whole "United States' a moot point. We would become the Various States of North America, with pockets of third world existence. Plus, who will watch the states? Breaking up the monies into 50 little 'sovereign nations' would only bring the headache of 50 little potentially corrupt states. Sure, there are corrupt local politicians now, but at least they have the eyes of the nation on them.
Where do you live? Do you have that much faith in your state to provide you with the kind of life you would expect living in the most powerful and rich nation in the world? I could foresee a whole slew of problems making each state a sovereign entity as far as roads, schools, protection and such goes, and really no immediate benefits. Really, what is the benefit of making your states school system and educational requirements different than anyone elses? Knowing what 'importance' Perry puts on education(cough) I sure as hell wouldn't want my kids to be 'educated' in that state. Or, to put it another way, I wouldn't want all the people around me who I count on to protect me, heal me, or simply support my state, educated in that state. A rising tide can carry all boats, but it can also swamp ALL boats.
Oh, just wanted to add that your hero, and man of the people Herman Cain agrees with you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/herman-cain-leader-reader_n_1099854.html
Most of those things can be achieved on the state level. Why do we need the federal government involved in libraries, police forces, school classrooms, etc?
the benefit of the federal government in such affairs is setting national guidelines, that are then met at the local level. I went to many school board meetings in my community in the US. They had to adhere to state and federal guidelines, but the details were up to the community. Most of those guidelines were not -- what i would consider -- burdensome.
it is also pointed out that federal guidelines can equalize the states when it comes to these elements. I personally feel that the schools should be equalized financially -- that taxes are divided equally among schools so that the basic facilities and standards of education can be met, as opposed to "wealthy areas" vs "poor areas" having completely different funding and thereby educational facilities, books, etc, and providing very different educations.
I feel that, personally, there needs to be more regional work with environmental protection -- i agree with general federal guidelines, with state applications, but I think that states need to work together as well, to create regional plans. this could be federally mandated, though it would be great if the states decided just to do it on their own. Do you think they would? Their constituents?
I'm also a big fan of public libraries. Police forces, I think, need to be independent of the executive branch. I've been observing this process between the US vs NZ. Here in NZ, the police force is national, not local. Of course, people who are police are local, and live locally and what not, but it's not run by the local government.
Here's an example. In Oakland, Ca, the mayor ordered the police to clear the occupiers. I'm not saying this was right or wrong, but that the order came down from the mayor, and the police followed that order. In Dunedin, NZ, occupiers have encamped in the "octagon" -- the park in the middle of town. The mayor and city council of Dunedin then issued a trespass order to the police, asking them to clear the park. The police, then held a series of hearings, ultimately going before a judge, to determine if the trespass order was legal, and therefore the police would be able to act on it. The police determined that it was not legal, and therefore did not have to follow through on the order. Instead, the occupiers and the city council met, and it was determined that a single tent -- that could be occupied 24-7 -- would be placed on the Octagon to allow the protestors to have a continued public presence, and that there would be no limit to protestors day or nite who could occupy.
The take-away from this is that the police force is actually independent, part of the judicial system of the state, rather than the executive. I think that this is very interesting, and it is something that can be managed through state judicial systems. The adjudication, too, of which orders are "legal" is first handled within the police department's legal teams, and then taken before a judge if they cannot come to a clear conclusion.
I think that this would be interesting in the US, as it would decrease a certain measure of corruption. I'm learning a lot about the police forces here in NZ. They are quite efficient, to be honest, as most orders are clearly legal and easy to act on, and it's only a few orders that go through adjudication.
Another interesting aspect of the police force is that they are also designed to protect individual's constitutional rights. my friend is doing film/tv research, and been taken through several ride-alongs. In one ride along, there were some men disrupting the peace and/or robbing a gas station. Nearly everything starts out, btw as "disrupting the peace" and then when police are on the scene, they determine what is going on. He thought that was interesting. Once they determine that, they look at what the charges may be, and it's actually at booking that the charges are determined based on the police report.
Anyway, in this particular instance, they were heading toward a gas station, and the men began to run away (unfortunately for them, they didn't scatter, which would make more sense, but many criminals are not that smart as far as i can tell). so, they followed in the car, and then later on foot toward a house. The men got into the garage of the house, and closed the garage door. the police went to the front door, saying to the women who answered "we have been chasing some men, and they came into your garage, may we search the premises?' And their answer was "no, we don't know anything about it, and you cannot search the premises."
At which point, the police had to leave. My friend said "but, you can easily assert that you are attempting to apprehend. . ." (essentially, that you have probable cause (http://law.jrank.org/pages/2015/Search-Seizure-current-structure-search-seizure-law.html)) and they said "not here. Here, we have to respect this family's right to their property and privacy. If they say the men are not there, and will not let us search the premises, then that is it. we chased them to this spot, but our job is done."
What is interesting is that it is the family's constitutional rights regarding search and seizure -- the rights to privacy, etc -- that were protected, regardless of what the call was, who came in, etc. where as, in the US, they could simply move in saying that they had probable cause to search the premises to apprehend those persons, and then let the court decide.
Likewise, they can choose to be particularly lenient without it being a problem. Their reports are filed differently, but there was a situation here where some kids broke into a camper van late one night (across the street from our house no less), and then sat and had a smoke. What they smoked, I don't know. I called the police, suspecting it was neighborhood kids as they'd come on skate boards, and I wasn't certain if it was drug related. Mostly, it was just someone else's property and it was noisy. Also, there had been several break-ins in our neighborhood over several months (mostly stealing appliances and electronics), but i figured these kids were not involved in that.
The police came with a beagle.
The beagles are used as drug sniffing and contraband searchers. When you come to NZ, you're greeted at the airport by beagles.
So, here's this police officer and a beagle, and he gets to the camper van and the kids apparently had a very, very small amount of marijuana on them. He noted that they didn't have papers, or any means to smoke it, even though he assumes that was what they were attempting to do. He got their addresses and names, but let them go (having confiscated the mj), and then a letter was sent to us itemizing the report and thanking us for our information and attention in the safety of our neighborhood, and also a letter was sent to the parents of the children (this was noted in my letter). They were informed of drug-related law, told that the children were given a fair warning, and that there names would be in the system for several years on drug-related activity, which means that the warning was recorded. It would not affect any records (school, etc) but was simply the way the police keeps track of who has been given drug warnings.
Perhaps this is considered all too lenient or whatever, but i find that -- overall -- we have quite a peaceful society, and i think it's due, in part, to the fact that the police are independent of the executive branch, have their own directives, and also their own adjudication as to whether or not what they are doing is legal.
fascinating stuff, imo.
I don't know how this fits in, I just am thinking that local police forces, etc, are a great idea, but perhaps a state-level separation or some such. Not quite sure what. :D
iris lily
11-19-11, 12:54am
I don't wish to subsidize local municipal services when it is the residents who decide at what level to fund it.
Some years ago one county over had no public library system. They were surrounded by decent library systems, but the citizens had not coughed up the money to pay for such a thing. I say: good for them. They don't wish to pay for that service, so be it. Neither will I pay for their lack of services.
One size does not fit all.
But I suppose someone here would think they were too poor and would wish to confiscate my money to pay for that neighboring library system.
One size does not fit all.
I don't think there is any need to use inflammatory language.
Taxation is not confiscation. What the taxation rate is has been generally (over the years) decided through the republican process (by which i mean the process of a republic, not the political party). It is also commonly called the democratic process (by which I mean the process of a democracy, not the political party).
The founders felt it necessary to form a federal government for the betterment of all who would participate in the union. They also found it important to protect the state's individuality and local needs. It is a tricky balance, and some look for more federal direction for the benefit of the whole, while others look for less federal direction, asserting that what happens at the local level will ultimately benefit the whole.
This argument is not new, it was there in the beginning, and it blew *wide open* in the civil war. And of course, it continues to this day.
The only problem that I have is that it seems impossible to have a sane discussion about it. Someone usually resorts to some form of inflammatory language.
In your example, i find that through the (already established) system of government granting (at state and federal levels) it is simple enough to extend libraries into this such that those communities that cannot raise the income via taxation (due to poverty) -- as opposed to those who choose to decrease taxes and services and/or those who choose to allocate taxes in other directions as the community deems valuable -- can simply apply for these grants.
Likewise, a basic standard of state and federal financial support for schools has immense value to the country as a whole -- all children are educated and able to function in both the local and wider, global community. Due to issues of poverty, many communities not only lack proper facilities of education (buildings in disrepair, etc), but likewise cannot afford the basic necessities of education such as books, basic school supplies, or teachers.
It is because "one size does not fit all" that there should be a balance between the federal, state, county, and township levels.
But having federal input into the situation -- such as basic standards of educational facilities -- doesn't mean that it's putting it into a "one size fits all" scenario, nor does it mean that all schools will be the same (as the schools here all have the same amount of government money and standards for curricula etc, BUT there are schools that have far more money and parental involvement than others, which also has huge contributions to how good the school is -- so this is something that government can't even begin to reach, and there will always be a level of inequality).
But it does mean that the safety of students and the standard of their education will be similar. And to me, this is a benefit to the whole of the country, not just the local community.
iris lily
11-19-11, 8:07am
I
...In your example, i find that through the (already established) system of government granting (at state and federal levels) it is simple enough to extend libraries into this such that those communities that cannot raise the income via taxation (due to poverty) -- as opposed to those who choose to decrease taxes and services and/or those who choose to allocate taxes in other directions as the community deems valuable -- can simply apply for these grants.
...
hunh?
I don't know of granting bodies that provide the cash cow to set up and maintain ongoing library services. Not in my state, not in my country.
...But it does mean that the safety of students and the standard of their education will be similar. And to me, this is a benefit to the whole of the country, not just the local community.
I too think that basic public education is a benefit to this country, but an absolute causal relationship between money per pupil and resultant outcome does not exist. If it did, the urban ghetto youth being educated by our failing city schools would all qualify for Harvard since the per pupil cost is one of the highest in my state.
Thank you for pointing out that there will always be a level of inequality, because in the example you cite, those citizens care more, perhaps have more, and certainly give more to that which they value--their schools. This circles around to my argument: the citizens of Jefferson county did not value library service enough to cough up the money for even a basic service, so why should I in another county send them my money?
Most of those things can be achieved on the state level. Why do we need the federal government involved in libraries, police forces, school classrooms, etc?
Why is applying it at a state level better? Unless disparity between states is seen as a good thing. The three examples you gave are primarily implemented at a local level - why should the state be involved?
It could do a lot to fix CA's problems - tariffs on goods coming from China through CA would add up to a lot. Or are you saying while the states should control these things, the feds should still control how they raise revenue?
ApatheticNoMore
11-19-11, 1:24pm
Many things probably can best be solved at a state level. Where I see a really strong argument for federal intervention is where attempting to solve these things on a state level would only lead to a race to the bottom: if say environmental regulations were only implemented on a state level. So all the polluting companies decide to move to the state where you can just dump any poison anywhere. THAT is problematic. And in fact you see the results on an international level. Libraries not so much so.
Things like national standards for education are discussions that become lost in the ether of abstractions. In theory I think this should be done on a state level. But not in thoery in the actuality of U.S. legistlation: what do we have in terms of national education standards? We have No Child Left Behind. Talk to what appear to be the brightest teachers out there about what they think about this and then come to your conclusions about how wonderful it is. My impression is: it is very harmful. Of course the exact same law implemented on a state level would be no less harmful (a bad law is a bad law ok), just a tiny bit easier to change and affecting less people.
Iris lily, I don't know of one either. That's what I'm saying.
The primary complaint that you make is that a locality may not want a library, so running this locally would be beneficial. I agree.
But, there is a difference (remember, one size doesn't fit all!) between a community that chooses not to fund something and a community that cannot fund something. When a community wants to fund something but cannot, then an easy "fix" would be applying for funding from the pooled funds (taxes) of the state or federal governments. Using a grant system -- which is a system that already exists, eg, you can apply for a grant to start a business or education or arts and humanities or science etc -- it would be the common application process. LIkewise, organizations like libraries are already used to this process, as library grants already exist (both private and public sector).
In regards to education, it's not simply the dollar value that I'm looking at, but rather what the situation of the individual school is. The reality of education in an impoverished environment is that the stress of the environment often overrides the education. More money isn't necessarily the solution. BUT, the primary issues that I have seen with impoverished schools usually fall into three categories: 1. inadequate facilities (buildings are in disrepair being the greatest problem); 2. overcrowding and/or student teacher ratios (this is a problem across the board, I think); and 3. lack of educational resources (lack of books, paper, pencils, and the basics for an education, and in some instances, lack of chalk boards, chalk, and similar for teachers). The issues that cannot be helped by money is -- stress/problems of neighborhood/home environment, bringing in the best and brightest teachers, the education level and activity/interest of the parent, etc.
I think that having a basic amount of funding for all schools (at either state or federal level or a combination thereof) would allow facilities to be maintained, teachers to be hired (assuming they can fill those positions), and the library, text books, and other elements of education be provided for the students. I am not, necessarily, talking about computers for each kid (something that one school in PA does -- it's a very wealthy neighborhood, and this is something that they value), but rather the very basics required for education. I dare say I wouldn't even include calculators. I learned to do calculus and physics "by hand" on paper, and I see no reason why the same practice couldn't be done today -- several decades out.
In a lot of ways, it's not much different than how the school lunch program is run -- which is a socialist tool i believe in, but those regulations are run by corporate interests rather than public health currently (eg, the pizza/tomato paste is a vegetable issue) -- but for the most part, these programs are actually run locally (eg, in Minnesota, I believe, there are many neighborhood/township public schools that create and source their own food and include local, seasonal and organic vegetables and fruits at each meal). With this program, a certain amount of money is allocated to each school, but if the budget is higher than that allocation, then the school must figure out how to raise that money -- local tax, donations, whatever it is.
To me, this is a good example of how we can have a federal program or ideology that is shared across the board, but have it decided and managed at the local level.
mtnlaurel
11-20-11, 7:34pm
I've got a jammed packed weekend with kid/family stuff, but I really am going to challenge myself to put 2 hrs towards it early next week.
I bet a dollar to a donut that we are all going to hear about this (Nordquist Pledge) in upcoming news cycle ad naseum on all our preferred news vendor outlets as SuperCommittee d-day looms.
Iris Lily --- I might be off the hook!!!! Turn on 60 min right now - lead story on Nordquist! I think 60 min will do much better than me. !Splat!
iris lily
11-20-11, 10:38pm
Iris Lily --- I might be off the hook!!!! Turn on 60 min right now - lead story on Nordquist! I think 60 min will do much better than me. !Splat!
Oh sorry, I missed that! But I did hear his name mentioned during the panel discussion of the "super Committee" in Congress and their inability to meet the 11/23/2011 deadline.
loosechickens
11-21-11, 12:00am
Grover Norquist made it abundantly clear in the interview on 60 Minutes that ideology is absolute, and that he and his followers (and the ones he has by the short hairs if they break their "no taxes" pledge, by his organization threatening to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into primary challenges against them in their districts), will see the country go down to ruin in order to protect the multimillionaires or anyone else from paying any increase in taxes, no matter what the country faces, no matter how dire the situation. And if they destroy the country in the process while trying to destroy government, well, so be it.
It's an ugly, ugly world that this man wants, and it is very scary that he and his organization Americans for Tax Reform, with its shadowy and concealed donor base, are under no obligation to disclose who finances his very successful ideological campaign.
The 60 Minutes interview may open some eyes to this guy, who is really the linchpin cause of the complete gridlock in Congress, he and the unknown donors who provide the money for his organization and its power.
Very, very interesting interview, and I'd recommend, Iris Lily, that you check the CBS 60 Minutes site for a tape of it, especially since you seem to have been unaware of this guy and his immense influence over Republicans and the positions they are taking on the questions facing this country financially. In this case, ignorance is NOT bliss, I'm afraid. You can watch the interview and hear him, in his own words, uncensored. And in it, he makes very clear what the agenda is, and while his stock phrase is "that is what the people want", his ego forces him to make sure its clear that he's the one achieving the results. That alone was interesting in the extreme, watching ego at play in this man, right up to the diabolical smile on his face, ending the interview. Amazing.
Yea, he did keep saying that this is what the people want but that's a lie, isn't it. In survey after survey the people overwhelmingly want to raise taxes on the very wealthy as well as cut spending. They want to close loopholes and reduce the military till we can 'drown it in a bath tub'.
The guy was total ego and clearly driven by ideology. He kept repeating this lie and (Steve Croft?) didn't call hm on it. And this guy isn't even an elected individual. He is a freaking lobbyist! And all these republicans have signed his pledge to essentially have a constituency of one. And his little smug grin showed he knew that.
I think Grover Norquist's position may be a little more vulnerable than it seems. The only way to CUT enough from the Federal budget to balance it would be to wipe out or significantly reduce/restructure a lot of programs that, right or wrong, a significant number of voters rely on. Barring a wholesale shift in position on how we, as a country, spend money any successful deficit reduction plan will need to include higher taxes and/or reforming the tax code in a way that brings in more revenue. I can easily see a scenario in which 50 or even 100 signers of the pledge meet privately then all go public at once telling constituents that they did their best, but times changed and we have to raise taxes in addition to budget cuts. Mr. Norquist is successful in large part because of the campaign he can mount to counteract a single dissenter, but I doubt he or his organization can muster the resources to fight a war on 100 different fronts. The one thing he said over and over in the interview is that it is the voters who have the power. He was right.
I hope you're right Gregg. It really bothers me, and really should bother anyone, that these elected leaders are being held hostage with blackmail threats.
Yea, he did keep saying that about the voters. Pretty arrogant coming from the cheap seats where HE can't be voted away.
Kind of reminds me of way back when, when the democrats were 'beholding' to Jesse Jackson and had to present themselves to him for his blessing as they looked to higher office. That used to really chap my behind. When Clinton refused to play that game, he had my vote!
Pretty arrogant coming from the cheap seats where HE can't be voted away.
Yep, it's awfully arrogant to exercise free thought, free speech and free action these days. We really should restrict that sort of thing.
Speaking of which, I saw today that the EU has made it illegal for bottled water manufacturers to say that water can prevent dehydration. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html . Doing so will now make them subject to a two year stint in jail.
That's the sort of thing that happens when you restrict free speech. Gosh, hope it gets here soon.
loosechickens
11-21-11, 2:28pm
I sure hope you're right, Gregg, because that's about the only way I can see us managing to get out from the vice this guy Grover Norquist and his cohorts are crushing the Republican representatives private parts with. As former Sen. Alan Simpson said, it will take guts, but..........
And, today, Newt Gingrich is saying that he thinks it will be a GOOD thing if this thing falls apart. One wonders if HE isn't shorting the markets like that Republican Congressman from Alabama just before the 2008 meltdown. Maybe there's lots of millions to be made by Newt and company that way.
Alan, I keep coming back to trying to wrap my brain around you feeling comfortable with a Gingrich/Cain Presidency. Is it that ideology is so overwhelmingly important to you that you're willing to overlook corruption, graft, the worst of "pay to play" that Gingrich represents in government, and the real incompetency of Cain, not to mention character issues? I've always thought of you as a really smart man, that I disagreed with on most issues, and certainly in our worldview, but I've respected your mind and your grasp of the issues from your own point of view, and found reading your thoughts on things interesting and thought provoking. But you being willing to support these guys has shaken that, really.
www.juanitajean.com seemed to cover Gingrich well with her column after George W. Will and Paul Krugman managed a "blue moon", "snow in July" moment about him. I agree, and I'm honestly amazed that you don't.
from www.juanitajean.com
Okay, so who is the one man on this planet who can unite George Will and Paul Krugman?
Newt.
Oh, it’s such fun!
“It is an amazingly efficient candidacy in that in embodies everything disagreeable about modern Washington,” Will said, running through a long list of problems he had with Gingrich.
And Krugman may have the best line e.v.e.r. about Newt by saying, “he’s a stupid man’s idea of what a smart man sounds like.”
.
Alan, I keep coming back to trying to wrap my brain around you feeling comfortable with a Gingrich/Cain Presidency. Is it that ideology is so overwhelmingly important to you that you're willing to overlook corruption, graft, the worst of "pay to play" that Gingrich represents in government, and the real incompetency of Cain, not to mention character issues? I've always thought of you as a really smart man, that I disagreed with on most issues, and certainly in our worldview, but I've respected your mind and your grasp of the issues from your own point of view, and found reading your thoughts on things interesting and thought provoking. But you being willing to support these guys has shaken that, really.
It's not necessarily ideology. I look back at all of the positives of the Clinton administration and give credit where it's due, which means Newt Gingrich.
I'm only sorry that doing so brings out such judgemental observations.
Such is life.
Yep, it's awfully arrogant to exercise free thought, free speech and free action these days. We really should restrict that sort of thing.
Speaking of which, I saw today that the EU has made it illegal for bottled water manufacturers to say that water can prevent dehydration. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html . Doing so will now make them subject to a two year stint in jail.
That's the sort of thing that happens when you restrict free speech. Gosh, hope it gets here soon.
Yep, it's pretty awful when people keep putting words in your mouth. Gee, Alan, I didn't say anything about restricting free speech, but gee, that is your MO isn't it. Demonize someone for something they didn't say, but twist their words/meaning to fit your talking points.
And what exactly does water have to do with it? Why are you talking about some ridiculous rule in the EU? Are you trying to tie my comments to this? Or maybe you are saying because I don't care for this man and his tactics, I somehow support some goofy water labeling law in the EU? Please enlighten all of us as to whatever water labeling laws in the EU have to do with Grover Norquist. Or my statement about Grover Norquist.
Loose, it's pretty obvious to me. Alan likes Cain/Gringrich because he considers them his intellectual equals, or superiors. No one would vote for someone who they thought had less of a grasp of world affairs and national history/politics/social interaction than them. Really, who would vote for someone who was less informed than themselves? I'm trying to accept this truth and I want to respect Alan's choice. Who should know better than him that Herman Cain is his intellectual equal/superior.
***MOD HAT ON***
Take a deep breath people, this thread is taking on a pretty snarky tone. Let's always keep in mind that posts need to be directed toward the topic, not fellow posters. It is always perfectly acceptable to ask questions of others who are involved in the threads, but it is not acceptable to use language that demeans other posters or belittles their beliefs or points of view. The link below will take anyone with questions about this policy to the rules of conduct for these forums. If questions exist beyond that please feel free to contact me or any of the other moderators or administrators for further assistance.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?12-Forum-Etiquette
Looks like it's gonna be another interesting election cycle on these forums. >8)
Looks like it's gonna be another interesting election cycle on these forums. >8)
What's interesting about it? It's the same people, engaged in the same behaviour.
Step forward, or step back....
There’s a good opinion piece on this in today’s Wall Street Journal . Scrape off the class envy and libertarian rhetoric, and its at base a conflict of visions. I think Grover Norquist does the country a service in the way he helps highlight the stark philosophical difference between the two parties. The democrats believe they can keep the Entitlement State rolling with some fine-tuning and additional tax revenues. The republicans seem to think the current path is unsustainable no matter how high taxes go. It’s hard to see much room for compromise at this point. They’ll just have to let the voters resolve it. Failing that, the financial markets eventually will.
Pretty arrogant coming from the cheap seats where HE can't be voted away.
You mean like us?
I do think this "pledge" business is out of hand.
In the recent election, I ran for and won office. Within a week of registering with the state elections folks, I had half-a-dozen special interest groups contact me demanding that I sign their various "pledges", most of which were so poorly worded/thought out that even if you agreed with them in principle you'd be a fool to sign on. My wife, who also ran for and won a position, had a similar line of pledge-seekers after her.
You mean like us?
Huh? :confused: Unless you ARE Grover Norquist then, no, I wasn't talking about you.
I do think this "pledge" business is out of hand.
In the recent election, I ran for and won office. Within a week of registering with the state elections folks, I had half-a-dozen special interest groups contact me demanding that I sign their various "pledges", most of which were so poorly worded/thought out that even if you agreed with them in principle you'd be a fool to sign on. My wife, who also ran for and won a position, had a similar line of pledge-seekers after her.
Good for you bae. You can't truly be an independent unless you are...independent! Whether the people agree or disagree with you, at least they can be assured it's you and not someone behind a curtain pulling your strings.
Congratulations also goes to your wife.
Huh? :confused: Unless you ARE Grover Norquist then, no, I wasn't talking about you.
Well, we can't be "voted away", and we have some idea of what we'd like politicians to do. The only difference between us and Grover Norquist or George Soros is resources and organization.
What's interesting about it? It's the same people, engaged in the same behaviour.
Ahhhh gee, bae, do you mean in the election or in the forums? :moon:
Well, we can't be "voted away", and we have some idea of what we'd like politicians to do. The only difference between us and Grover Norquist or George Soros is resources and organization.
OH George Soros! You've been watching Fox News again! Great big difference between Grover Norquist and George Soros, and if you don't know that, well, there's nothing I can say.
Having an idea of what you want the politicians to do, and blackmailing them with real power brokers money is kind of two different things, isn't it.
Your post really doesn't make any sense as far as the discussion goes, but hey, carry on.
Ahhhh gee, bae, do you mean in the election or in the forums? :moon:
Yes.
Yes.
Perfect answer for a politician.
Perfect answer for a politician.
Nope. It was pithy, accurate, and complete. And didn't fall prey to "the tyranny of the 'or'".
There’s a good opinion piece on this in today’s Wall Street Journal . Scrape off the class envy and libertarian rhetoric, and its at base a conflict of visions. I think Grover Norquist does the country a service in the way he helps highlight the stark philosophical difference between the two parties. The democrats believe they can keep the Entitlement State rolling with some fine-tuning and additional tax revenues. The republicans seem to think the current path is unsustainable no matter how high taxes go. It’s hard to see much room for compromise at this point. They’ll just have to let the voters resolve it. Failing that, the financial markets eventually will.
You don't know much about Grover Norquest do you?
He is on record as saying that he would like to "drown government in the bathtub." All his will is bent towards that goal.
And one way to do that is to virtually eliminate taxes. No money, no government. No government, more money in our pockets, more FREEDOM, right?
Here essentially is the Grover Norquist economic vision for America:
1. Minimal government, minimal taxes. The government/society exists first and foremost to protect the individual's right to accumulate and maintain wealth. We "Simplify" the tax system. That means either a flat tax on everyone or a national sales tax. It's fairer and eliminates the bureaucracy of the IRS.
What should federal government provide?
1. Military protection (this might encompass CIA, border protection, anti-terrorist stuff).
2. Infrastructure for copyright and patent protection.
3. Maintenance of interstate waterways or whatever constituted "interstate commerce" 200 years ago.
4. Diplomatic services for US interests internationally
Everything else should be abolished, privatized or pushed back to the individual. No more DOE, EPA, DOA, FTC, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, farm subsidies, etc.
Local level:
1. Criminal Justice System (cops, courts, prisons)
2. Fire protection (but only if you pay the voluntary fee)
3. Whatever else local governments agree to provide, which should be nothing because rich people don't really the government to provide public schools, sanitation, parks, universities, medical care, libraries, buses, road maintenance, recreational programs etc. Of course all these services can be privatized and/or provided per user fees as well.
The moral reasoning behind this vision the transfer of wealth in any way is communist and tantamount to slavery. Rich folks shouldn't have to work hard to pay anything for poor folks, that's involuntary servitude since their labor goes towards the benefit of other people. Just like in the bad old days. So, high taxes = slavery for the rich.
This outlines what constitutes "Freedom" under that vision. Rich folks don't have to pay a lot of taxes. Everybody pays the same percentage of their income, and no redistribution of wealth occurs in any way.
2. The second part of that vision, of "Freedom"
The free market of course. If the market shakes off the burden of government intrusion, it will blossom into it's full economic potential and provide for everyone. We don't need any regulations because the market will magically resolve any problems or issues.
The only thing you need to succeed then is your own hard work. Anyone can be a millionaire! The freedom for any individual to become a millionaire and keep virtually all the money is the most important economic paradigm of this country.
So, if you don't prosper, you haven't worked hard enough or availed yourself of the proper opportunities provided by the free market.
Charity will fill in the gaps, and charity is okay because it is voluntary. Just remember, the government is not a philanthropic organization! So, that is why we have to cut government to the bone! (Credit to Michele Bachmann for that one).
With Grover Norquist's help, God willing, we will all soon be FREE!
The moral vision of the people who don't agree with Grover Norquist is basically this: social compact. We join together to take care of each other. This vision is not centered on wealth protection, it is centered on the welfare of human beings. It is essentially utilitarian. Society should work to maximize everybody's happiness, help to reduce everybody's suffering. This does NOT mean society can guarantee happiness or that nobody suffers, only that resources go towards that end. So, if there's a whole bunch of folks who are suffering in society and only a few who are prospering, society is not serving its function. The practical aspects of government's role in this must change as conditions conditions change. The need is not for bloated bureaucracies, but government programs that address the problems and aspirations of the majority of people.
This is the moral imperative for higher taxes on the wealthy.
So, you see, it really does come down to this: A society based on the primacy of property, which ultimately tends to favor those who have property, or a society based on the primacy of meeting at least the basic needs of human beings.
There’s a good opinion piece on this in today’s Wall Street Journal . Scrape off the class envy and libertarian rhetoric, and its at base a conflict of visions. I think Grover Norquist does the country a service in the way he helps highlight the stark philosophical difference between the two parties. The democrats believe they can keep the Entitlement State rolling with some fine-tuning and additional tax revenues. The republicans seem to think the current path is unsustainable no matter how high taxes go. It’s hard to see much room for compromise at this point. They’ll just have to let the voters resolve it. Failing that, the financial markets eventually will.
If only the republicans showed any interest in cutting the amount of government spending outside of this country maintaining our empire, one of the largest budget items in the federal budget, I'd at least have some interest in what they might have to say. Until that time, though, their talk is just a bunch of hot air. We certainly didn't see any budget cuts happen during the last republican administration. The only republican who actually wants to cut the federal budget is Ron Paul.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.