Just got off the phone with a Republican survey. Basically, it was your basic "if the election were held today..." phone call. Now, I wouldn't have answered as the CallerID said "Friends of Doc" as in Doc Hastings my too long in office Congressman.
As you can see, he looks downright creepy with a goatee...
But as my parents are not morning people, I picked up the phone so they wouldn't wake up. I didn't even let the poor lady get a word in edgewise as I began to tell her that Doc wouldn't get my vote even if I were on my deathbed. Well, it turned out she wasn't there to talk about him. So, I thought I'd give her a shot. It turned out is was more about our governor and the presidential race.
So, I decided I'd try to be as open and pleasant as possible without being personal with the candidates. It turned out to be a very pleasant experience so I thought I'd write a little about it. (I was going to do it on Google+, but I thought I'd use my blog instead.)
First, the gubernatorial race between Attorney General Rob McKenna and former Representative Jay Inslee. I explained to her that while I normally vote strictly Democrat, I'm a little hesitant when it comes to this race. I am leaning Democratic, but I have great respect for Rob as an AG. I think he is a man of great integrity. I also think he has come out better in the two debates I have heard between him and Mr. Inslee. (I actually wish he would stay as AG, the two guys running for that position can't seem to agree which one of them missed the most King County council meetings.)
However, Mr. McKenna has come out against gay marriage and joined a bunch of other AGs in filing suit against Obamacare. Doesn't really endear him to me.
Then, she asked me about Mr. Romney. What could I say but it didn't matter if I voted today or on Election Day, he would not have my vote. And then she asked me why. I explained it was the National Republican Party. I explained that the economics and the foreign policy didn't matter to me as much as the justice issue. That I didn't believe the Republicans were any longer a party that believed in the values put forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Items in particular:
the party is anti-women
the party seems to be about hate and taking rights away from people
the party is too tied to one religion and is consistently trying to foist one set of values on a diverse population
the Christian right has too much influence on the party
the denigrating of science and people that are educated, and the glorifying of ignorance
the idea that science and faith are mutually exclusive ( I even told her I was Mormon and not the only one that won't be voting for Romney.)
I explained to her that until the Republicans took a long hard look at themselves they would never have my vote. I also told her that if the Republicans were just fiscal conservatives they'd have my respect. I even toyed with voting for Gov. Huntsman since he was so rational.
She then asked how long I had been voting strictly Democratic. I told her since George W Bush's re-election. I explained one of my problems was when I first noticed that Republicans (in the federal sense, at least) were no longer representing their individual constituencies as much as the party line and more particularly GW's line. (One of my pet peeve's with Doc, actually.)
All in all, it was very pleasant. I asked her to pass my concerns on up the line. And I apologized for leaping down her throat when I thought she was for Doc. Maybe I should pick up the phone more often, instead of screening my calls??
I have on-line friends on the right and the left of the political spectrum. What I have noticed is that we are both concerned about the same things: freedom and fair play. What is funny is that both the left and the right seem to interpret how to solve these problems differently.
The idea of freedom is a funny one. Those on the right believe that President Obama has restricted their freedom by introducing socialism into the government. They believe he has helped to weaken our country by adding regulations and spending.
However, I, as one on the left, believe that the Republicans espouse principles that are even more hazardous to our freedom. Introducing Voter ID laws that restrict voting rights to the poor and ethnic minorities. Taking away a woman's right to choose and restricting her access to birth control. Denying the LGBT community the right to marry the one they love and protection from persecution. These are worrying issues to me.
Those on the right and those on the left love to demonize each other. I am guilty of this myself. However, it really isn't fair. The policies may be criticized and condemned. Even the leaders (to a point) should be condemned for their stances and their statements. But we really need to tone down our arguments. After all, our goal is the same. We want a better country. We want the American Dream. We are all Americans.
I also wish that we would look at what each other wants. Even if you disagree with the policies of your opponents, we should try and understand what kind of America we all want. Good luck to you all. There are only 61 days left!
I found myself listening to the Farewell Address of President Harry S. Truman this morning as I was walking my dogs. (That's right, I'm a history geek! So sue me!) I have always put a lot of faith in the old saying "those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it".
The commonly used expression, "Those who ignore history are bound (or
doomed) to repeat it" is actually a misquotation of the original text
written by George Santayana, who, in his Reason in Common Sense, The
Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it."
Santayana's quotation, in turn, was a slight modification of
an Edmund Burke (1729-1797) statement, "Those who don't know history are
destined to repeat it." Burke was a British Statesman and Philosopher
who is generally viewed as the philosophical founder of modern political
conservatism.
As I was saying, I was listening to the man from Independence. Many of the things he stated in this speech had such resonance today. I felt I had to share it with others. It is my hope that both the Right and the Left can take something from this speech. Perhaps, remember a simpler more genteel time when the word gentleman meant something.
I suggest that you listen to the entire speech, it is very enlightening. I also recommend this website from the Miler Center: Presidential Speech Archive you can find an entire archive of presidential speeches. It is an incredible resource. But I would like to share some passages that really struck me as relevant or just struck me.
The greatest part of the President's job is to make decisions—big ones
and small ones, dozens of them almost every day. The papers may
circulate around the Government for a while but they finally reach this
desk. And then, there's no place else for them to go. The
President—whoever he is—has to decide. He can't pass the buck to
anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.
Or as former President George W. Bush once said, "I'm the decider". That was the first thing that struck me as I head this quote. I immediately thought of that particular Bush-ism. This next quote isn't relevant or even that important but I found it a little humorous.
Of course, for more than 3 years Mrs. Truman and I were not living in
the White House. We were across the street in the Blair House. That was
when the White House almost fell down on us and had to be rebuilt. I had
a study over at the Blair House, too, but living in the Blair House was
not as convenient as living in the White House. The Secret Service
wouldn't let me walk across the street, so I had to get in a car every
morning to cross the street to the White House office, again at noon to
go to the Blair House for lunch, again to go back to the office after
lunch, and finally take an automobile at night to return to the Blair
House. Fantastic, isn't it? But necessary, so my guards thought—and they
are the bosses on such matters as that.
Poor Mr. Truman. Back and forth and forth and back. It just struck me as a little funny as I thought of Harry Truman - one of our more down-to-earth Presidents going back and forth by car across a street. He probably thought it was ridiculous.
Next was this section. It showed me how very different Harry Truman was from all the Presidents there have been in my memory. The first I remember was Jimmy Carter, then there was Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and now Barack Obama. Six Presidents. But none as down-to-earth and immediate as Harry Truman. Don't misunderstand me. Truman is not my favorite president. If I had to choose one for the 20th Century, it would be either JFK or FDR. But there is a lot to admire in Mr. Truman.
I want all of you to realize how big a job, how hard a job, it is—not
for my sake, because I am stepping out of it—but for the sake of my
successor. He needs the understanding and the help of every citizen. It
is not enough for you to come out once every 4 years and vote for a
candidate, and then go back home and say, "Well, I've done my part, now
let the new President do the worrying." He can't do the job alone.
Regardless of your politics, whether you are Republican or Democrat,
your fate is tied up with what is done here in this room. The President
is President of the whole country. We must give him our support as
citizens of the United States. He will have mine, and I want you to give
him yours. [bold and italic added for emphasis]
I add the emphasis because this really struck me. We have lost this respect for the President of the United States. Whether it was we on the left that who did not believe that President Bush was the popularly elected President, or those on the right who believed that President Obama was not even eligible to be President. We did not give either of them our complete support. Indeed. When members of the Congress pledge to make President Obama "a one-term President" or when Joe Walsh interrupts a Presidential speech with "You lie!", we have to wonder what kind of example we are setting. As others before me have said, you don't have to respect the man, but you should respect the office.
I think President Truman hit the nail on the head. We need to support the President. Maybe not the policies but we do need to support the Office. He is our representative to other countries. He speaks for all of us when he talks with foreigners. If we show him disrespect, could we be surprised if others do? Additionally what are we showing to our children? If I showed the same disrespect some do to President Obama, to one of my schoolteachers or - God forbid - my parents... Well, let's just say I hope I would have made some arrangements ahead of time.
President Truman went on in his speech to talk about the Cold War - how it began in his term, how he believed that he had set the policies that would eventually win it. Much of this section was tarnished by knowledge of what had happened. But many of his standards, his policies, are ones I wish we had today. They were high ideals. Of course, this is before the military-industrial complex really took over. Before we had compromised ourselves totally with our foreign relations in suspect countries.
Truman referred to conflict against the Communists as:
...this conflict between those who love freedom and those who would lead the world back into slavery and darkness
He also believed that he had set the policies that could win it:
We have succeeded in carving out a new set of policies to attain
peace—positive policies, policies of world leadership, policies that
express faith in other free people.
In today's world, we may consider this simplistic and idealistic, but many of the conflicts in today's world may have been avoided if we had used policies "that express faith in other free people." How many times have we sided with the dictator for reasons of trade or other circumstances?
He then goes on to talk on history, to remind his "fellow Americans" of the lessons history has taught us and that we need not make the same mistakes. I really enjoyed this section so I will quote it in full.
These are great and historic achievements that we can all be proud of.
Think of the difference between our course now and our course 30 years
ago. After the First World War we withdrew from world affairs—we failed
to act in concert with other peoples against aggression—we helped to
kill the League of Nations—and we built up tariff barriers that
strangled world trade. This time, we avoided those mistakes. We helped
to found and sustain the United Nations. We have welded alliances that
include the greater part of the free world. And we have gone ahead with
other free countries to help build their economies and link us all
together in a healthy world trade.
Think back for a moment to the 1930's and you will see the difference.
The Japanese moved into Manchuria, and free men did not act. The
Fascists moved into Ethiopia, and we did not act. The Nazis marched into
the Rhineland, into Austria, into Czechoslovakia, and free men were
paralyzed for lack of strength and unity and will.
Think about those years of weakness and indecision, and the World War II
which was their evil result. Then think about the speed and courage and
decisiveness with which we have moved against the Communist threat
since World War II.
The first crisis came in 1945 and 1946, when the Soviet Union refused to
honor its agreement to remove its troops from Iran. Members of my
Cabinet came to me and asked if we were ready to take the risk that a
firm stand involved. I replied that we were. So we took our stand—we
made it clear to the Soviet Union that we expected them to honor their
agreement—and the Soviet troops were withdrawn from Iran.
Then, in early 1947, the Soviet Union threatened Greece and Turkey. The
British sent me a message saying they could no longer keep their forces
in that area. Something had to be done at once, or the eastern
Mediterranean would be taken over by the Communists. On March 12th, I
went before the Congress and stated our determination to help the people
of Greece and Turkey maintain their independence. Today, Greece is
still free and independent; and Turkey is a bulwark of strength at a
strategic corner of the world.
Then came the Marshall plan which saved Europe, the heroic Berlin airlift, and our military aid programs.
We inaugurated the North Atlantic Pact, the Rio Pact binding the Western
Hemisphere together, and the defense pacts with countries of the Far
Pacific.
Most important of all, we acted in Korea. I was in Independence,
Missouri, in June 1950, when Secretary Acheson telephoned me and gave me
the news about the invasion of Korea. I told the Secretary to lay the
matter at once before the United Nations, and I came on back to
Washington.
Flying back over the flatlands of the Middle West and over the
Appalachians that summer afternoon, I had a lot of time to think. I
turned the problem over in my mind in many ways, but my thoughts kept
coming back to the 1930's—to Manchuria, to Ethiopia, the Rhineland,
Austria, and finally to
Munich.
Here was history repeating itself. Here was another probing action,
another testing action. If we let the Republic of Korea go under, some
other country would be next, and then another. And all the time, the
courage and confidence of the free world would be ebbing away, just as
it did in the 1930's. And the United Nations would go the way of the
League of Nations.
When I reached Washington, I met immediately with the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Defense, and General Bradley, and the other
civilian and military officials who had information and advice to help
me decide on what to do. We talked about the problems long and hard. We
considered those problems very carefully.
It was not easy to make the decision to send American boys again into
battle. I was a soldier in the First World War, and I know what a
soldier goes through. I know well the anguish that mothers and fathers
and families go through. So I knew what was ahead if we acted in Korea.
But after all this was said, we realized that the issue was whether
there would be fighting in a limited area now or on a much larger scale
later on—whether there would be some casualties now or many more
casualties
later.
So a decision was reached—the decision I believe was the most important in my time as President of the United States.
In the days that followed, the most heartening fact was that the American people clearly agreed with the decision.
And in Korea, our men are fighting as valiantly as Americans have ever
fought—because they know they are fighting in the same cause of freedom
in which Americans have stood ever since the beginning of the Republic.
Where free men had failed the test before, this time we met the test.
Inspirational, isn't it? Sometimes I think that our memory goes back only one generation and not even that. Many times I have found myself thinking of how history is repeating itself (and I'm not just bemoaning hairstyles from the 1970's and 1980's returning). Things I thought had been settled in my mother's time are still issues. There are still genocides and we still turn our backs. We see people struggling for autonomy, respect, and independence and we do nothing.
He goes on to talk about the atomic bomb and why he only used it in Japan. He even got letter about it.
Now, once in a while, I get a letter from some impatient person asking,
why don't we get it over with? Why don't we issue an ultimatum, make
all-out war, drop the atomic bomb?
For most Americans, the answer is quite simple: We are not made that
way. We are a moral people. Peace is our goal, with justice and freedom.
We cannot, of our own free will, violate the very principles that we
are striving to defend. The whole purpose of what we are doing is to
prevent world war III. Starting a war is no way to make peace.
But if anyone still thinks that just this once, bad means can bring good
ends, then let me remind you of this: We are living in the 8th year of
the atomic age. We are not the only nation that is learning to unleash
the power of the atom. A third world war might dig the grave not only of
our Communist opponents but also of our own society, our world as well
as theirs.
Starting an atomic war is totally unthinkable for rational men.
Such simple yet eloquent statements. Of course, Harry Truman had been to war. How many of our Presidents have actually seen combat? The senior George Bush served in the Pacific theater of World War II, as did John F Kennedy. Richard Nixon also served in the Navy but saw no actual combat. Jimmy Carter was US Naval officer in the submarine service, but this was in postwar time. Even Ronald Reagan was in the service, but saw no overseas duty due to bad eyesight. But Harry Truman saw service in the quagmire that was World War I. He also joined the service as a Private and worked his way to Captain. He was 33 when the United States joined the war. He did not need to go. But he re-enlisted in April 1917 leaving his mother and sister to manage the family farm. He was put in charge of a Field Artillery Unit and commended himself well. As I found on the Truman Library website:
Early in September 1918, the 129th Field Artillery undertook
one of the longest and most brutal road marches of the war,
from the Vosges mountains to the Argonne forest. The men
guided their horses and equipment over one hundred miles
of crowded, muddy back roads to the new American sector.
This march and the five days of intense combat that followed
were the ultimate test for Battery D. In the closing weeks
of the war, the 129th Field Artillery moved into action
for the final time on the old battlefields of Verdun. They
fired their last shots fifteen minutes before the Armistice
took effect. Battery D had fired more than 10,000 shells
during the war.
So, Harry Truman knew what war was like. He knew what the families went through. As a Captain, he probably had to write letters to grieving families. He was an ideal president to have at this time. Many times history has an aspect of serendipity to it. Where would we be if President John F Kennedy had not just finished reading The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman just before the Cuban Missile Crisis? And, in many ways, Harry Truman was the right person to have at the critical junctures of the end of World War II, the birth of the Atomic Age, and the start of the Cold War. War wasn't an abstract concept to him. He knew it, he had experienced, he had felt its influences. It is remarkable as the Cold War started that the United States never bombed Soviet Russia or even North Korea. (Though General Douglas MacArthur certainly wanted to do that as well as Red China.) Having a President of high moral fiber and not just a prominent statesman was quite an advantage. Pretty good for a former haberdasher.
When it came to the Cold War, apparently, he had great faith the American system would come through:
The Communist world has great resources, and it looks strong. But there
is a fatal flaw in their society. Theirs is a godless system, a system
of slavery; there is no freedom in it, no consent. The Iron Curtain, the
secret police, the constant purges, all these are symptoms of a great
basic weakness—the rulers' fear of their own people.
In the long run the strength of our free society, and our ideals, will
prevail over a system that has respect for neither God nor man.
A simple yet accurate description. Today, communism and socialism are dirty words and a sure way to drag your political opponent through the muck. But we need to realize that capital C Communism is the "godless" system of "slavery". Socialism is an economic system and even if an American endorses it, it does not taint our system. As long as we respect and honor our Constitution, we are safe. As long we are honest to our ideals - the ideals of Harry Truman - we will always prevail.
Truman had a "deep and abiding faith in the destiny of free men". He - like most Democrats - was a dreamer.
With patience and courage, we shall some day move on into a new era—a
wonderful golden age—an age when we can use the peaceful tools that
science has forged for us to do away with poverty and human misery
everywhere on earth.
Think what can be done, once our capital, our skills, our science—most
of all atomic energy—can be released from the tasks of defense and
turned wholly to peaceful purposes all around the world.
There is no end to what can be done.
I can't help but dream out loud just a little here.
The Tigris and Euphrates Valley can be made to bloom as it did in the
times of Babylon and Nineveh. Israel can be made the country of milk and
honey as it was in the time of Joshua.
There is a plateau in Ethiopia some 6,000 to 8,000 feet high, that has
65,000 square miles of land just exactly like the corn belt in northern
Illinois. Enough food can be raised there to feed a hundred million
people.
There are places in South America—places in Colombia and Venezuela and
Brazil—just like that plateau in Ethiopia—places where food
could be raised for millions of people.
These things can be done, and they are self-liquidating projects. If we
can get peace and safety in the world under the United Nations, the
developments will come so fast we will not recognize the world in which
we now live.
This is our dream of the future—our picture of the world we hope to have when the Communist threat is overcome.
In today's world, many politicians are ridiculed for dreams. They are told just focus on those of us at home. But what happens when you dream? JFK dreamed that we could to the moon. And what did we gain? Those of us at home? We gained a lot - and not just the fun that was Tang.
LEDs, Infrared Ear Thermometers, Artificial Limbs, Anti-Icing Systems, Improved Radial Tires, Firefighter Gear, Cordless Vacuums, Water Purification, Global Positioning - these are just a few. Also, Lyndon Baines Johnson had a dream of his own. Yes, Vietnam detracted from his dream. But he still dreamed "to end poverty, promote equality, improve education, rejuvenate cities, and protect the environment." Quite a dream? Did he succeed? Many would say no. But as John Gardner, his Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, said:
"What we have before us are some breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems."
Even our current President has had his own dreams. The Affordable Care Act being one example. It is too soon to tell what kind of impact it will have. It is very controversial. But so were the landmark legislation that LBJ enacted (pushing it through Congress). Even the much derided President George W Bush made a great impact on global health by making a commitment to fight the Global AIDS epidemic.
"I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five
years, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of
Africa and the Caribbean." President George W. Bush
So, I don't think we should criticize Truman for his big ideas. What if we hadn't thrown so much money at the military-industrial complex? Could Eisenhower and later Kennedy have made a dent in those dreams?
Then Truman lists some of the great strides they had made in the United States since he had been President:
We have 62 1/2 million people at work. Businessmen, farmers, laborers,
white-collar people, all have better incomes and more of the good things
of life than ever before in the history of the world.
There hasn't been a failure of an insured bank in nearly 9 years. No depositor has lost a cent in that period.
We have made progress in spreading the blessings of American life to all
of our people. There has been a tremendous awakening of the American
conscience on the great issues of civil rights—equal economic
opportunities, equal rights of citizenship, and equal educational
opportunities for all our people, whatever their race or religion or
status of birth.
It strikes me as significant that these are aspirations that Americans still strive for. These are still our values. These are not radical, liberal ideas. These are ideas that came from the mouth of a haberdasher, ex-Army soldier from Missouri. Hardly a radical.
He concluded his speech as follows:
When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better
qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task. But the work was
mine to do, and I had to do it. And I have tried to give it everything
that was in me.
Through all of it, through all the years that I have worked here in this
room, I have been well aware I did not really work alone—that you were
working with me.
No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the
burdens of this office, save as the people helped with their support. I
have had that help—you have given me that support—on all our great
essential undertakings to build the free world's strength and keep the
peace.
Those are the big things. Those are the things we have done together.
For that I shall be grateful, always.
And now, the time has come for me to say good night—and God bless you all.
This brought to mind a recent speech President Obama made
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.
There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to
create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you
to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a
business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The
Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the
Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our
individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
He was ridiculed, derided, and demonized for this. But I think the spirit is the same today as it was in 1953. It was referring to a sense of community. That the great things are never done alone. Whether it is a small or large business, a municipal project, the Space Race, the fight for Civil Rights, we all need each other. This country was built by people cooperating towards a common cause. Our Congress, State Legislatures, our school boards, our court system - they are all based on the tenet that together we can decide our own future.
This blog has lasted much longer than I thought it would. I hope you have borne with me and I welcome any comments you may like to post below. You can also visit me at Twitter or Google+. Finally I'd like to leave you with a final quote by President Harry Truman:
There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.
Curmudgeon Musings from the “Corporations” to the rest of you. (by J. C. Kendall on Google+)
1. We are not your enemy. Your enemy is whoever causes you to think that our success is an accident, or that we just got lucky, and that we did not really earn it. It is a distraction, an encouragement to look at us, while they rob you and your children blind.
There are many enemies in this system.
2. The reason for Corporate Tax Structures separate from Individual Taxation is a tacit admission that what we do benefits society. Corporations provide jobs that pay into the tax base, not steal from it. Corporations are an economic engine, not a drag on the economy, which is why states and other nations fight for us, offering incentives and tax breaks because they know that what we do is beneficial overall.
"that what we do benefits society" - academically this argument should be right. But maybe we should have a system where if you don't then you don't get the special tax breaks and/or subsidies. There are many corporations that poison our water and air and (sometimes) food. Some corporations are not employing that many people and move more and more jobs out of the U.S. Industry is the economic engine, not corporations. You may argue "same diff", but there are flaws in your argument.
3. You could take all our money, all our property, everything we have, and not be able to fund the U.S. for more than a few months. This is a fact. With our businesses, our jobs, and revenue gone, then what? You gonna tax breathing?
No, I suppose not. Don't give them any ideas.
4. In the same way that not everyone who is poor is a criminal, the same goes for us. We have our bad apples, but those our Individuals, not businesses. The way that Corporations are tagged as criminals would amount to suggesting that everyone who lives in Detroit is a felon. Neither is true.
No not all corporations are criminals. However, the people that are criminals are accountable for their actions. I am just concerned that corporations should be accountable for what they have done.
5. No matter how much you tax us, it is you, who will ultimately pay. The U.S. used to have a thriving luxury ship building industry. The U.S. decided to slap a tax on Luxury Yachts, as a means to add more revenue to the coffers. Ship builders simply closed up shop and moved to other countries where they, and the jobs they provided, were welcomed with open arms. That industry is lost to the U.S. forever, as are the jobs. The U.S. lost money overall. A Corporation is not a charity. We are not in business to give away money. We are in business to make a profitable return to our shareholders. What is taken from us will be charged to YOU, one way or another. If we cannot do that, we will stop doing business, and the jobs we provide will go away. Make your choice.
No argument.
6. Corporations do not have souls, hearts, compassion, or feelings. Stop expecting it from us. If we claim compassion, it because it is a good sales pitch vs our competition. We exist to make money via providing a service or value to a select audience. Unless we call ourselves “Non-Profit, trust me; we aint. That does not make us evil, any more than an Eagle swooping down on a fish and pulling it out of a lake. It is simply what they do. Making money is not evil. Not giving it away is not evil either. Wanting to use our money to invest and expand, and ultimately create more jobs, is not evil either.
No they do not have "souls, hearts, compassion, or feelings" - but maybe they could act a little ethically? The Quaker business leaders of the chocolate industry (read Deborah Cadbury's Chocolate Wars) were able to incorporate the two.
7. Suggesting that we owe you something for nothing is as evil as it gets. We pay taxes too. More than you do. Maybe not directly, but add up the revenue from those we employ, the permits we buy, the energy we buy, and the markets we fund, and you will find that we pay more than “our share”.
Something for nothing? In what way? Corporations get a playing field slanted in their direction, better access to representatives.
8. Because we have a stake in the operation of the nation that taxes us, the Supreme Court has decided that we get a say with respect to voting and the support of elective candidates. The term “Taxation without Representation” applies here. We have as much right to support or reject those who would determine our futures as you. Want us to stop? Fine, stop taxing us. Bitch and Moan all you want, it is in the Constitution.
The problem with citing "taxation without representation" is that it's a flawed argument. You have better access to representatives than the actual electorate. Additionally, a corporation is not a citizen. It would be one thing if the different stakeholders were doing the supporting of the candidate. It's when it's done in the name of some "corporation" that I take issue.
9. When we succeed, you succeed. Do you know what a COG is? A COG is an acronym for “Cost of Goods” , or in short the cost of doing business. When our costs go up, those costs are passed along to you. Did you think we would just eat it? Nope. If Gas prices go up for shipping those Strawberries to your local grocer, well guess what? You are going to pay more for that Strawberry, dude. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. It really is that simple.
No argument.
10. If you are an educated individual, none of this should bother you in the slightest. The above are facts, period. If this does bother you, it is because you have been sold a bill of goods by some politician who believes the best way to win your vote, is to pit you against us. The point is, the very laws that allow for Incorporation, protect us from YOU. Our responsibility is to operate within the law, not to make you happy. If our members break the law, we want them punished as much as you do. They do us no favors by inviting increased scrutiny of our operations.
I think the main reason many are "bothered" by this is the fairness issue. Americans are big on fairness. You are taught from day one that as long as you play by the rules you can do anything: be an astronaut, be President, etc. That is my problem too. I believe in the free market.
"If our members break the law, we want them punished as much as you do." - Really? Are you sure? Massie broke safety regulations, were they held accountable? How about all the companies that used the derivatives and contributed to the housing and subprime markets to destroy the economy? Were they punished? This is my biggest complaint with corporations. They can destroy people's lives, they can destroy the air and water, they can drag down our economy, but they are not punished. 11. The largest set of investors in corporations are PENSION FUNDS. Hurt us through legislation, and you hurt yourselves, your families and your futures. Pension Funds invest in corporations because we provide a safe and steady growth opportunity for their capital. Tax us more, they get less. They is YOU. Get it?
Sadly, very few Americans have access to a pension. I don't know the actual figures. But it seems to me that unless you are a union member or one of a diminishing number of people, most people don't get a pension.
I wrote this, because frankly, I’m growing tired of the meme of the “Evil Corporation”, because we are mere entities, and not designed to give a rats -ass about your day. We have jobs to do for those who invest in us, and who buy our products or services.
I responded to this because I am tired of the us or them meme. There are people in the middle. People who through no fault of their own that are destroyed between the two.
We follow the law. If you don’t like the laws, vote for those who can change them, just like we do with our dollars. Its legal. You get a voice, Unions get a voice, and thererfore WE get a voice. Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy.
You follow the law? Good. I'm more concerned with those that don't. I get a voice because I vote. My voice should not be a so quiet compared to a corporation who has no interest in jobs, clean air, clean water, etc. Unions are there to represent the wishes of their members (workers and their families). Corporations are interested in dollars and their profit margin. Slightly different.
If you chose to reply, please do so on the above, and not with irrelevant feelings about Corporations. If you dispute an assertion, come with it. If you cant, don’t bitch at me for saying something you don’t want to hear. In short, debate it.
Come at me, BRO!
P.S. Off-Topic comments will be blasted from the thread. Do it twice, and you get blocked. Let’s have a fun, lively debate. It aint personal, so let’s keep it that way.
Paul Krugman's recent column (dated Monday, June 4, 2012) was excellent. But I shouldn't be surprised. Mr. Krugman is a voice of sanity in this incredibly insane world.
In this column, he discusses a couple of points that I have felt all along (though I am not nearly as eloquent as he is).
First:
Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won't notice is that that's precisely the policy we've been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.
Exactly. I have always wondered why they were so vociferous in their complaints about how extreme this President was, how he was dragging us into socialism, how he was destroying our great country. Was it because he wanted to pass healthcare reform? (And did pass a watered-down version of it.) Was it because his name was so foreign? Was it because he was black?
Because, as far as I can see, apart from HCR, I can see a Republican President having much the same policies.
Secondly:
So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: It depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Barack Obama hasn't followed (in large part because the GOP wouldn't let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.
This is the main point for me. The President has spent so much of his time over the past four years trying to reach out to the Republicans that many people haven't seen the opposition for what they are really doing. This country is having a serious economic crisis and what has the Republican strategy been since Day One of the Obama Administration? To make sure he was a one-term President. They are so focused on the political priorities, they forgot that they were sent there to represent the American people. They are sacrificing our well-being, for their political futures.
The Republicans' actions do not bear close scrutiny. Remember how often they say that Obama was the reason our credit rating was downgraded? Think back to that time, what happened? The Republicans were refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Congress was gridlocked. That was when the credit rating was downgraded. A creditor could care less how much debt you're carrying. They just want to know that you'll make the minimum payment. It's in their interest for you to have more debt. They make more money that way.
The rest of Mr. Krugman's column was excellent. He explains why austerity is a mistake. (Other reading from Mr. Krugman on this was in the British newspaper, The Guardian, on Sunday, June 3, 2012.) He explains why we aren't Greece, we're 90's Japan.
I will leave you with Mr. Krugman's closing line:
For that, in the end, is the best argument against Republicans' claims that they can fix the economy. The fact is that we have already seen the Republican economic future — and it doesn't work.
One of the biggest problems in our political system is the money. I don't care which way you lean - right or left - I think we can all agree on that. But how can we fix it? Many countries have a restricted political season. (Quite a bit shorter than ours.) We could do that. I'm not sure if that would help. (Though it would make life a lot more peaceful.)
But one of the biggest problems I see is that our elected officials don't seem to actually dedicate their entire term to "public service." We all know that most will try to line their pockets and help out their donors. But, beyond that, there is the problem that the last 25-50% of their term is devoted to fundraising and politicking. What if we erased that problem?
How?
Make a system where they cannot serve two subsequent terms and no fundraising until they are out of office. Think about it. Would your employer let you take time off from work to raise money to try and get your contract renewed?? Now, I know there are a lot of obstacles to this. And I don't believe it would work unless ALL states followed it.
I remember in the 90's when they passed term limits and all that. We lost one of our Representatives who was Speaker of the House. Everyone thought that the guy they elected in his place would get that position. (Yeah, right. Too bad all voters don't have to pass a basic government quiz.)
But basically, the system could work. I also think you could make it so there was no limit to how many times a politician "served". He just couldn't serve two terms in a row.
Well, here I am typing on my notebook, reflecting on recent events. I am typing this in the basement of my parents' home as my dogs try to telepathically tell me it's dinner time. I started to think about the place of the internet in my life.
I use it to get news, to track what books I've read, to track my exercise, to listen to classical music and British comedy, and to communicate with others. It helps me keep abreast of breaking news. And I use it for social intercourse. I really don't have any friends in the neighborhood. And I don't get out much as I don't drive.
I use G-Mail, Google+, and Twitter. I love discussing books, politics, and Mariners baseball. I use it to communicate it to fellow Latter Day Saints and fellow liberals. Some of my favorite issues are women's rights, separation of church and state, stopping animal cruelty, social justice.
I really love discussing some of these issues on Google+, Twitter, or blogs. As long as these conversations don't get abusive, I love exchanging ideas. However, I must not be very good at getting my thoughts across. Many times I'm accused of being insane (because I'm Mormon) or a bigot (because I dislike fundamentalism and Israeli behavior towards the Palestinians). Sometimes I feel I should just stop.
Should I become just an internet observer? Or is it still safe to be a participant? Any thoughts out there? Any suggestions???
