|
| I'm appalled at the current state of politics within the Republican Party.
There seems to be no practical choice of a qualified candidate for President. The top runners include a very rich and successful capitalist who seems completely out of touch with the country's economic problems; a megalomaniac so unable to cooperate that he was thrown out of his powerful political position by members of his own party - and convicted of unethical conduct at the same time; an unsuccessful political hack who seems willing to do or say anything to attract votes; and a libertarian who apparently does not believe in modern economic realities.
They all seem to have the same one stated goal - to defeat the current President. They offer no solution to the present economic woes of the country except to remove all controls and reduce the government's power to guide and stimulate the economy despite past clear demonstrations that this is not a successful solution - as evidenced by the problems such policies have caused in the immediate past.
The present state of our political and economic affairs would seem to offer a perfect opening for a candidate willing to work for the good of all Americans by cooperating with the Democrats and doing whatever it takes to get the country back on track, but what the Republicans offer instead is more political strife supporting that part of the population which certainly doesn't need it.
One curious measure of the attitude of the various candidates is their insistence on being called by descriptive titles referring to positions they once held: Speaker, Governor, Senator, even though they no longer hold these positions. | | |
| Recently my local paper featured a comment by Raymond Chambers commenting on Devoe Moore's "My View"article blaming the current pessimism over the future of the American dream in which he essentially blames too much government intervention causing private entrepreneurs to stop investing in the growth of the US economy.
Here's Chambers' answer to that view in its entirety:
Businesses shouldn’t be running America
Re: “The American dream is in peril” (My View, Dec. 26).
Absolutely astonishing! DeVoe Moore’s My View was eloquently correct on two points: (1) the dream is in peril and (2) we’ve got to stop operating as usual. On everything else, his arguments were false.
First, he credits private entrepreneurs for investing to make America great. Completely wrong. From exploration and opening the West, to the railroads, to the land grants and universities, to the highways, to safe drugs, to safe flying, to safe cars, to computers and more, it was the government either forcing, encouraging or outright financing what private “entrepreneurs” or companies were unwilling or unable to do. Even then, as President Obama has discovered, business may not use the incentive money, instead choosing to hoard the stimulus cash.
Second, he implies that business has selflessly improved the country throughout the years. Again wrong. From at least the Robber Barons to the meat packing scandals, from shooting union organizers to the “unsafe at any speed” cars, from Richard Nixon’s deadly New Drug Application process to today’s Wall Street thieves, American business has been doing what it does best: killing people.
Let’s get back to basics: Business exists to make money. If it makes money helping people, fine. If it makes money killing people, also fine.
The purpose of government is to prevent business from killing us and maybe even to help us get to the American dream.
Here Mr. Moore is correct. We have to stop doing business as usual. We have to stop what Dwight Eisenhower narrowly defined as the military- industrial complex from continuing to ruin this country. How?
Well, Mr. Moore blames regulations. He is both correct and wrong here.
First, regulations were (and are) written by his business friends to protect their monopolies.
The issue is not that there are too many regulations but rather that there are the wrong regulations.
Unfortunately, the debate has focused on adding or removing regulations rather than righting them. I remember seat belts (I’m that old). The American automobile industry fought installing them because they’d increase the cost of the car (true) and people wouldn’t like them (not so true). Now, thanks to government forcing industry to do what it should have been doing, the highway traffic fatality rate is continually declining. Without government safety requirements, how many cars would the car companies sell to dead people?
Mr. Moore also blames free trade for the demise of manufacturing. Again, right and wrong.
Obviously, American business took advantage of moving to “cheaper” countries. Wait! American business took advantage of free trade. It wasn’t the agreement that caused so much grief as (as usual) what American business did.
So, how do we change “business as usual”? Well, it isn’t the military-industrial complex that has controlled government (elected or regulatory) since at least 1800. No, it is American business. Is, as the Supreme Court mistakenly decided, a business a human being just because it has “corp” in corporation? No, it is not. Business people are exactly the wrong people to serve in elective office.
Maybe if we could get rid of their self-serving presence, we could get people in regulatory positions with enough intestinal fortitude to, finally, write the proper regulations to get this country running again and give all of us a chance at the American dream.
Incidentally, I, like Mr.
Moore, have worked in the private sector: General Motors, Peoples Drug stores, and Wal-Mart. So, I know of what I speak.
Raymond Chambers
My View
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Raymond L. Chambers, Ph.D., lives in Bainbridge, Ga. Contact him at raychmbrs@hotmail.
com.
Dr. chambers seems to me to have a firm grasp of political and historic reality.
I also was a history teacher back in my youth  | | |
| I am amazed at the current direction the Republican voters seem to be taking. To be sure, their selection of the right candidate to face Barak Obama in the 2012 presidential election has been dominated by a mostly not-very-serious group, but the sudden upsurge in support for Newt Gingrich is startling to say the least.
Gingrich is a fairly corrupt politician - formally censored by the Congress itself for ethical reasons a few years ago - who is noted for his cynical and rather nasty attitude toward voters [He apparently regards them much like Bismarck did, as sheep to be led wherever he chose].
He has lied about his current lobbying efforts and certainly has no feeling for the plight of the currently unemployed - though he did suggest letting schoolchildren become "janitors helpers". | | |
| I don't get much response from political blogs. I wonder why?
Here in Florida we have a college football scandal brewing with fall-out probably exceeding that of Penn State.
This however concerns FAMU's famous Marching 100 band. A high-stepping, highly coordinated, fast tempo band that has been famous for a long time. Unfortunately, as with some other elite groups, a not-so-nice hazing tradition has developed over a long period of time. All the members seem to have been involved, as apparently is the 40-year-veteran band director - himself a band alumnus. Even though he had suspended thirty members a few months ago - apparently for excessive hazing, when one of the up-and-coming drum majors suddenly collapsed and died,apparently as a result of hazing; the college president suspended the band activities and fired the director -who has sued to get his job back.
This incident apparently exceeds the usual fraternity hazing.
I was a college fraternity member back in the 50's but any hazing I got was fairly light. How about you?
Have you ever been subject to hazing/bullying? what was the outcome?
Do you thing hazing of "new members"of an elite group is a good idea?
| | |
| Lie One: Higher Taxes and More Regulation will retard small business growth.
If this were true, small (and large) U.S. businesses would not have experienced their greatest growth spurts of the past century during the time when there was the most government regulation and highest individual and corporate tax rates (1940-70).
Lie Two: The U.S. has the best medical system in the world.
If this were true, the U.S. would not rank behind Australia, Canada,France,Germany,Japan,Norway, Sweden, and the UK in Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality and General Population Health. The US does spend over twice as much per capita on health care as most of these other nations.
Lie Three: The solution to the U.S. economic problem will be to reduce government regulation.
If this were true, the U.S., which is rated currently as one of the most business-friendly nations in the world (ranking fourth behind singapore, Hong Kong and New Zealand) with its 15% increase in GDP in the past five years would not lag so far behind China ()160% GDP growth), Argentina (102% GDP growth), Russia (94% GDP growth), Brazil (135% GDP growth), Indonesia (147% GDP growth), and India (100% GDP growth). These countries are ranked as the hardest places to do business and deal with government regulations ( in ascending order with India as the most difficult) according to the IMF and World Bank.
Lie Four: The "American Dream" is still alive and well. | | |
|
Premium