You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘GOP’ category.
It would be nice to be a Mexican living in Mexico. I can’t imagine what it would be like to live in a place where the government actually acts in the majority’s best interests. From the L.A. Times blog:
“Tens of thousands of Central Americans enter Mexico illegally every year, most with the hope of continuing on to the United States. But many stay in Mexico, at least for a time, where they may be beaten, killed, raped, kidnapped by criminal gangs, put in jail or shaken down by corrupt Mexican officials…
The Amnesty report says that up to 60% of female migrants suffer some form of sexual abuse; migrants are routinely forced to pay bribes; detention centers are woefully overcrowded, and victims are too terrorized to make formal complaints, rendering them “invisible.””
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/04/mexicos-treatment-of-immigrants-slammed.html
To summarize: Mexico dumps its poorest (numbering in the tens of millions) on the United States. The US government then taxes its citizenry to pay for, among other things:
-K-12 education for children of the illegals.
-Emergency room care (it is against the law to refuse care in the US).
-Processing and imprisonment of illegals who commit crimes.
And President Felipe Calderon comes to the US every year to lecture the US government about “racism” and to demand that they repeal their already unenforced immigration laws. He does all of this while turning a blind eye to (if not secretly encouraging) the terrible treatment of illegal immigrants on Mexico’s southern border.
The inaugural selection for the Mans Inc. book of the month is entitled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” by Arthur C. Brooks.
It is statistically proven that the single biggest indicator of one’s charitable givings is religion. I found it really interesting to read the various statistical breakdowns of altruism in the United States. Before being exposed to this book, I wasn’t sure what the findings would be to such a question, although it would seem that liberalism/socialism would naturally lead people to greater giving. It is simply not the case. Here are a few of the more telling statistics to be garnered from the book:
- Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
- People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
One of the things that I found really interesting that is so often religious conservatives tend to oppose liberal social justice advocates, and it is quite eye-opening to see who really “practices what they preach.” It is also interesting given that WordPress, the host which is lucky enough to have Mans Inc. on it, is replete with militant atheist blogs, and the statistical reality highlighted by Brooks is a stark reminder to these contributors to tone back their rhetoric and acknowledge the truths regarding how social justice and charitable organizations are supported.
I would recommend this book to any conservative who wishes to gain a more accurate platform to understand the disconnect between liberal philosophy and practice.
I’ll finish with a quote:
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon — a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.” Brooks, however, warns: “If support for a policy that does not exist … substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others.”
” We should just take back all the money that we gave those executives.”
“If the government is bailing out corporations like AIG, why can’t the government simply not pay executives these bonuses that aren’t earned?”
“Obama sucks!” (just to keep these articles harmonious).
The economy has most people dusting off their old pickfork, lighting up that trusty torch, and joining the angry mob.
One of the stories that has received the most attention regards the bonuses that are being paid to executives of corporations now under majority control by the United States Government. Hearing of executives of these companies being paid bonuses during tough economic times, when their companies have performed terribly, using government money that objectively represents debt that will be paid by our children’s children, will cause anyone to get pissed off, and rightfully so. But there is a huge difference between what ought to be and what is.
These bonuses represent contactual obligations that these corporations are bound to pay their employees. The Rule of Law would be severely deteriorated if these bonuses were not paid despite their contractual validity, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. No amount of moralistic reasoning, or meritocratic logic allows this contracts to be dissolved. This would have severe implications for many contractual relationships between employers and employees, and the negatives will far outweigh the positives in the long run.
The Democrat-controlled House and Senate has advanced a plan to retroactively tax these bonuses, which amounts to stealing from these citizens.
These bonuses are gone, and the major media needs to start focusing on the lack of leadership the Democrats are showing in proactively instituting new reforms to ensure that this pattern of incompetence does not continue.
As many of you are aware, the US Senate is a body of legislators comprised of many Gentlemen. Although, not all Senators are excellent humans, many of them are. The Senate is likely the most elite group of people in the world. The amount of power and influence held by Senators gets me pretty fired up.
Once such beauty is Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Recently he made some pretty good comments regarding the current financial crisis, particularly referring to the execs of AIG.
He said.
The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them (is) if they’d follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.
And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology.
Senator Grassley was referring to recent employee bonuses paid out to AIG execs. The company paid out $165 Million in bonuses, some of which were paid to employees in the department responsible for their financial predicament.
I love to see a Senator standing up and telling us how it is. Straight shooting politicians are few and far between and if they are going to be found anywhere, it is in the US Senate. Hopefully he sends a message to President Obama to a similar effect.
Dissenting Opinions.
Musings of Alexandra Ames
Today it was announced that Sarah Palin will be giving the key-notes speech at the Republican Senate-House dinner in June. Has the Republican party not learned from their mistake?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20063.html
In the hey-day of the party, the Republicans were the party of business, innovation, and intelligence. Many in the leadership of the party in the past have had impressive economic expertise, and if there was a candidate offered like this in the last election, it is debatable if Obama would have been able to pull out a victory.
So why continue to promote someone that, in part, cost the Republican party the election in 2008?
I for one strongly hope that the Republican party returns to its roots in business and economics. Upholding conservative social values is also good, but not is that if the only thing you bring to the table, you simply cannot win elections. The Republican Party needs to do some serious adjusting in it’s long term strategy, because, like it or not, having the name “Palin” anywhere near a ticket in 2012 is a sure-fire way to get two terms of a Democrat in the White House.
The GOP can start now by promoting candidates that are business saavy, and proven leaders in the economy. This is the recipe for success for a party that has been decimated in recent history.
This criticism comes from a desire to see the GOP strong again, and they can take a lesson from Harper’s success in Canada, a Prime Minister with a Master degree in Economics, helping to minimize the damage our country has to endure in this tough time.
Let’s hope that the GOP learns their lesson before it is too late!
