Tea Party just racist?

[Lisabob]

Hey Gunny, glad to see you back on these boards. Seems like it has been a while.

 

But...um... you do realize that this thread is close to two years old?

 

As Biden had not uttered his (rather idiotic) remarks about chains until earlier this month, I don't imagine Biden's exclusion from this discussion (up to this point) has anything to do with whether he was getting a free pass in this thread, or not.

 

 

[rismith]

Joe just cares about blah people.

[Gunny2862]

I'm around from time to time in the Scouting threads but tend to stay out of I&P, or just read them. I've got lots of other folks that can be upset with me.

I need this place to generally be available when I actually have a Scouting issue.

 

I didn't check the date but it was in my active today's active topics, so I just proceeded from there...

[Beavah]

Yah, this was quite a thread resurrection there, Gunny. Been a while, though. Good to see yeh.

 

Gotta agree with yeh on Biden's inflammatory comments.

 

Well, although there was a Republican President, he didn't have control of the House AND the Senate at any point, and at that point where the Democrats had control did the spending go up or down from before? Any guesses?

 

Um, not to pick nits, but George W. Bush had control of BOTH the house and the Senate for almost da full 6 years, from the start of his presidency until 2007. It was da Republican majority that cut taxes and eliminated da budget surplus, approved two wars without payin' for 'em, and a Medicare prescription drug entitlement which vastly increased da scope and spendin' of Medicare without payin' for it. When the Democrats took control of da House and Senate in 2007, spendin' actually went down in FY2007, but up in FY2008 because of da financial crisis (which exploded in 2009).

 

I'm not sayin' any of that was good or bad, but I am sayin' that unlike da most recent convention (and probably da next one), we need to be honest with each other as Americans. Da dems did push through big financial relief bills, but President Bush didn't veto 'em. Da Republicans did push through the financial deregulation in the 90s that led to the debacle, but Bill Clinton didn't veto it.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[scoutingagain]

Have to agree with Beav. I can't remember a presidential campaign base so much misinformation from both sides. It used to be if a candidate was called out for some of the blatant lies told by both sides in this campaign they would be humiliated out of the race. Now it's seen a politics as usual.

 

 

Sa

[packsaddle]

Beavah, all that is true. But Obama had the results of Bowles-Simpson as well as both houses and he DIDN'T implement it. Therefore, in spite of the lies and in spite of the fact that he hasn't released his long-form birth certificate, I'm going to support Romney.

[Eagle732]

I agree with a lot of what the Tea Party believes in. I guess if that makes me a racists in your mind that's your problem.

Oh, and I voted for Herman Cain in the primary election.

[Beavah]

But Obama had the results of Bowles-Simpson as well as both houses and he DIDN'T implement it. Therefore, in spite of the lies and in spite of the fact that he hasn't released his long-form birth certificate, I'm going to support Romney.

 

Yeh mean da fellow who's runnin' with Paul Ryan, the guy who voted against Bowles-Simpson event though he helped frame it on da commission? The fellow who promised on Thursday night not to cut Medicare, to increase defense spending, to cut taxes for business and not to raise 'em for individuals? Oh, yah, and reduce the debt?

 

I guess Social Security is toast.

 

Bowles-Simpson was a reasonable, well-thought through compromise, I agree. I was disappointed in both parties for not takin' it up, but particularly with the Democrats. It just tread on too many sacred cows - increasin' taxes, downsizing Medicare and Social Security and defense. Everybody likes to pander and promise on da budget, but nobody wants their name attached to the specific things that need to happen to get it right.

 

What I don't get in da Romney speech at the convention is how he thinks the President is going to create 12 million jobs, other than by makin' government jobs? A tenet of conservative thought is that it's the American people and American businesses that create jobs, eh? Not da politicians. So why make a promise like that?

 

I remember once havin' a scout tell me while workin' on citizenship in the community that he wouldn't vote for da county sheriff because he wasn't pro-life enough. I asked him to read up on da experience of both candidates and their performance record in the job of policing and runnin' law enforcement, and then to look up how much control the county sheriff has over abortion.

 

What can da president affect? Not too much. Da operation of da federal departments over time, a bit of a nudge in one direction or another for da budget, and foreign relations. I think we'll see less environmental protection under Romney, and perhaps a bit of streamlinin' in other departments. The environmental stuff seemed to be one of da things during the speech that he actually believed in. On foreign policy, I see Romney fumblin' that for a while based on his speech, his experience, and his record. Worst would be gettin' us into a military adventure with Iran while cutting taxes, a la GWB.

 

On da economy, no matter who wins we should see growth in the coming years, in part because da relief of uncertainty that is currently holdin' up investment - both U.S. uncertainty in da tax code and budget, and European uncertainty. That's assumin' that continued warming and weather changes don't dust bowl our agriculture sector.

 

Overall I see both Obama and Romney as relatively intelligent moderates, despite their pandering to their party extremes, so I don't really think the election will change too much.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

12 million jobs: "So why make a promise like that?"

Beavah, did you just fall off the turnip truck? That was a speech at the convention of a political party. It means nothing. It's not going to happen any more than the promises that Obama broke were going to happen.

 

Social Security? C'mon, you already know I'd cut that whole program right now along with Medicare and Medicaid if it was up to me. There is not and never was any such thing as 'security', only a temporary willingness to give welfare to our own elderly parents. Anyone today who thinks that system was or is sustainable is delusional.

At the very least we should admit that it IS welfare for the elderly and remove the income limit or put a means test on it.

 

Simpson-Bowles was an anemic plan and you practically said as much yourself a couple of years ago. If we were serious about getting the debt under control we'd have come up with something more aggressive than that. Failure to pass even THAT plan was confirmation that this country has decided to let fate make our decisions. So be it.

 

I agree with you that it won't make much difference who is at the wheel of a bus that has already plummeted over the edge. That happened during the Bush administration. We're just waiting to get a close-up look at the ground.

So yes, Ryan is a liar and a sycophant and Romney will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. But at least Romney has demonstrated an ability to change his mind. The toadies in the audience during that speech probably believed him! That's a good laugh!

Romney may be a clod in foreign policy, so what? He IS a good business manager and that's more than I can say about the current occupant or the one just prior to him. So all other factors being somewhat unimportant, I'll go with the good manager who has no personality and is willing to sometimes lie to the public rather than the poor manager with a great personality and who only lies part of the time. Romney doesn't really care about people. He cares about the bottom line. And in that manner he is by far the better match for an economic system that needs a manager. I am absolutely convinced that Romney will be willing to let people undergo hardship, even if it means that the middle class is sacrificed in favor of the rich, in order to better manage things. That clearly is what he represents in life. And it is the choice that the American people made a very long time ago. Time to let it happen.

Have a great weekend! (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah]

He IS a good business manager and that's more than I can say about the current occupant or the one just prior to him.

 

Yah, well, have to agree about da current and former occupants of da office.

 

But what makes yeh believe Romney is a good business manager?

 

His career as far as I can tell has been one of highly-leveraged high-risk financial gamesmanship that yielded only average long-run returns. Not actually buildin' a business that produced anything or served anyone.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

The bottom line, fella. The 'purpose' of business is to make profit. Romney did that quite well. And if some of it happens to trickle down to people whose labor led to his profit, so much the better. Yes, his actions took advantage of various forms of leverage and cost some jobs in order to turn that profit. It was nothing more than allowing an optimization to occur quickly rather than festering over the long term. In that sense all he did was provide mercy killings for weak business plans and in return he was paid well by his investors. That is good business. Plus, I give him a lot of credit for his handling of the Olympics. That was the kind of management that is needed.

Besides, don't you remember 'Voodoo Economics'? That's what we decided on way back then. And that's what we're still committed to. Romney is perfect.

 

Look, if you want to claim that Romney's approach is merciless, perhaps heartless, I can't disagree. But if it turns a profit while optimizing the system, it is good business. And in the Darwinian sense, while some people will get chewed up in the process, in the long run it will be better for the collective.

Can you honestly see the Obama approach accomplishing that goal? Really?

 

Edit: heh, heh, it just occurred to me as well....think of the great stuff Saturday Night Live can do with Romney/Ryan. Delicious.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah]

Nah, packsaddle, I'm an old fashioned, conservative fellow, eh?

 

I believe da purpose of business is to make a legitimate profit, eh?

 

My grandfather, a self-educated businessman, shared with me a story that he felt represented da real purpose of business that he'd tried to live his life by. The essence of it went like this:

 

In a village of 100 people, everyone had to spend an hour a day hikin' to the river and hauling water for their family's needs. Then this young fellow from da village noticed after a storm that some water from upstream had flowed into a new channel and he got an idea. Usin' bamboo that he could gather, string that he paid for, and all of his free time for a year he puzzled out how to run a bamboo pipe from upstream down into da village and fill a cistern. His agreement with the other 99 people in da village is that they'd each give him 10 minutes of labor a day in exchange for fillin' up at the local cistern instead of walkin' an hour to the river and back.

 

So each person in da village got 50 extra minutes because of his work. He in turn got 990 minutes of their labor, which meant all his regular chores were now taken care of and then some. He was able to pursue other things. After a while, he noticed that da water comin' down the pipe was able to push things along and do work....

 

Anyways, the point of my grandfather's story to me was that the only legitimate profit for a real businessman is da profit earned when your work benefits others; when it makes their life easier or better. It's OK to get rich like that, because yeh have also made others' lives richer.

 

That's the traditional American conservative viewpoint, eh? Yeh celebrate that success, and yeh reward it because it encourages more success that benefits everyone.

 

Da problem with these financial engineers is that generally speakin', what they do is look for well-financed, well-run, well-capitalized companies. Companies that have real value that may be underpriced. They put up 10%, borrow 90%, and acquire a controlling interest in the company. Usually that happens by promising big bonuses (bribes) to the current board and execs. Then they take over, and transfer da 90% loan amount onto the company's books. They pay their own 10% back by chargin' da company high fees for management services and other things. Then they chop up da company and sell off its valuable pieces, cutting jobs in order to service da loans that they took out on behalf of da company. If they do their job well, what's left is a much smaller company that is leaner, which they turn around and sell for a huge profit. If they do their job poorly, da company goes bankrupt, the banks they borrowed from are left holdin' the bag and managing the cleanup, and they still break even or make a small profit on fees.

 

The question I have is what part of that is legitimate profit, eh? What part of that is earned by helpin' others lives get better in return for a small portion of their time?

 

Bein' a conservative means that yeh believe to your core in some important values. One of those is that while profit is a good thing, and success to be admired, the only legitimate profit and success is in buildin' somethin' or offerin' a service that makes others' lives better. Profit must profit everyone.

 

Beavah

 

[BadenP]

Beav

 

While I agree with you in principal we both know that has never been the reality in our country going all the way back to the founding fathers. If you had said this back in the 1950's Sen. McCarthy would have branded you a communist and have you blackballed.

Still it would be nice if we as a society put the welfare of our citizens over large profits in the corporate world. Sad to say that will probably never become a reality.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[packsaddle]

Beavah, you're a nice guy. You care about people. You have a personal conscience and a personal moral compass that I have great respect for because you can describe and defend your ideas with great passion.

You'd likely have limited success in the business world.

Evidence is the fact you can ask these questions:

"The question I have is what part of that is legitimate profit, eh? What part of that is earned by helpin' others lives get better in return for a small portion of their time?"

 

I ran that first question past a colleague in the business college and he reacted to the phrase "legitimate profit" in a way that was similar to how some us recently reacted to the phrase "legitimate rape".

Your argument is predicated on the idea that the outcome indicated in the second question is unlikely through the kinds of business practices you seem to think are 'shady'. You may be right. Business doesn't care, though, because a competitor WILL exploit that kind of business practice if you don't. And then the competitor will outcompete you and the people you care about will lose anyway. You seem to think that government regulation is a good thing. I think BadenP is correct. McCarthy would have you on his list. The Peace Corps wants YOU!

 

While I think you are truly faithful to the spirit of Christ's teachings, THAT is neither the spirit of business nor of the free market. There IS no spirit at all, as a matter of fact. In order to remain competitive, business can be, or perhaps must be, indifferent. Business simply is what it is. It runs simply because it does optimize economic transactions using the simple mechanism of maximizing profit to accomplish that goal - and if another economic system is as efficient as ours it may outcompete ours or other systems eventually. A sense of religious morality is not the reason that the Chinese kick butt in the world marketplace. If we don't compete effectively, we will be removed as competitors, and rightly so. The irony is that THIS is what we said we wanted. If you think our economic system is incompatible with Christian morality, you may be correct. But that IS the way it is. In business, morality is relevant only in as much as customers allow their sensitivities to override their desire to optimize their purchases. And we know how well that worked for many industries in this country...reference that thread on scout uniforms made in China.

 

I can well understand your disappointment with the Republican party. My sympathies.

 

But as far as the economy is concerned, if there was a hypothesis that ANY of the economic plans that are articulated by either party will achieve the goals they state...or your goals for that matter...I'd put my money on the null.

 

The market is what it is and it's going to be what it's going to be. But we need someone who can actually understand the market and can actually manage the government. Romney wins hands down on that.

Besides, I could be wrong. World peace might be at hand. Cold fusion might work after all. And utopia could be on the way. Either way it will all be irrelevant on 21 December.

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, an op-ed piece in the NY Times illustrates this conflict nicely. "Not only was it a matter of social justice, Ford wrote, but paying high wages was also smart business." This was Henry Ford manufacturing Model T's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/opinion/henry-ford-when-capitalists-cared.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120903

After citing several other such examples of business/worker mutual benefit, extending into the early 1970s, the article continues: "Today the prevailing cut-to-the-bone business ethos means that a company like Caterpillar demands a wage freeze and lower health benefits from its workers, while posting record profits."

And then he notes that this is uniquely American. That is my point. We led the world after WWII in every sense. We developed the world economy. We essentially set the ground rules for everything. And the world adopted it, nearly the entire world. I submit that in the type of ethos we've chosen since the neocons succeeded, we're still leading the world. Just think of the paradise it's going to be when everyone has that same ethical sense. Just think.

But that's the direction we chose. And Romney is the guy to take us there.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)