I was watching the Republican debate last night, though I missed the first hour. It is pretty amazing to see two Mormons, a woman and an African-American up on the stage duking it out to be the next Republican Presidential candidate. There is one more candidate in the wings (Gov. Rick Perry of Texas) and of course, the “other woman” stealth candidate, who isn’t running but appears to be running.
The Republican Party has come a long way with the integration of women, minorities and…. Mormons.
Well, two out of three ain’t bad.
Last night Herman Cain, the African-American businessman was asked the only question about the Mormons, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. The question was essentially about why he didn’t like Mormons. Cain answered, that it wasn’t him that didn’t like Mormons, but people in the South that didn’t know much about the Mormon religion.
And so it goes.
Rick Perry is getting into the race as the candidate Evangelical Christians can embrace, because they sure are not comfortable with Mitt Romney, the current front runner. After all, he is part of that “cult.” And the polls continue to show that many in the Republican Party would not vote for a Mormon for President.
Hence, the great irony. (I love irony)
Mormons are, by and large, the strongest, most loyal Republicans on the planet. The last two times Utah went for the Democratic Presidential candidate was 1964 (Lyndon Johnson) and 1948. (Harry Truman)
But, yet, the Republican Party, especially the Religious Right (meaning Non–LDS Christians) don’t really like Mormons. Not sure they would fare any better in the other Party, by the way. Think Morris Udall.
Basically, it’s “we love your money and your support, thanks for your votes, but please leave your candidates at home.”
What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
i think i dont get exactly what it is you are saying.
dragon: “we love your money and your support, thanks for your votes, but please leave your candidates at home.” That’s what he is saying.
Prediction: Rick Perry will be the next Republican US Presidential Candidate.
I say this due to the relationship between many conservative American Christians and Evangelicals. More mainline Protestants may not be Evangelicals themselves, but they sort of admire them for being more.. I don’t know.. hard-core Christian?
Christian Evangelicalism is more like Islamic fundamentalism than, say, Mormon fundamentalism.
Mainline LDS would kind of like to disown the fundamentalists, finding them an embarrassment.
Other Christians and Muslims sort of admire their more hard-line brethren.
Yeah, Jeff, the irony is SO thick.
There just isn’t a reasonable alternative for many Mormons who are politically conservative. I’m an Independent, because there’s stuff I like and loathe about both parties (in about equal measure, frankly) – but there is no way is Hades that I can support the only other “alternative” right now. The Tea Party scares me spitless.
I voted for President Obama as much out of protest toward President Bush and as a result of the only other choice being McCain as any other factor. I might vote for him again this time around as much out of a protest toward the way the Republican Party demonizes me through their demonization of Mormon candidates as anything else. That will depend almost entirely on who the actual Republican candidate is. If it’s either Bachmann or Perry, it’s a no-brainer for me. Bachmann is clueless (albeit perhaps not Palin extreme), and Perry is a snake.
I’m used to being seen as a brainwashed cultist by people whose group politics are even more extreme than my church’s – but the pandering when they need our support and reversal when they don’t gets really old, really fast.
Romney, for all his intelligence and private sector success, is a dufus. He is a politically tone-deaf wannabe who wanns to be so badly he will reverse himself on everything he has ever believed in to get it. If he had remained a moderate to liberal Republican and stood by his principles — and if the party had not avalanched to the right — he might have made a great and possibly electable candidate.
Ray,
“There just isn’t a reasonable alternative for many Mormons who are politically conservative.”
My sense of the situation is that most conservatives, Mormon or not, hate Obama so much, or have been told to hate him, they will vote Republican no matter who it is. they same can be said for Dems. they will ultimately vote for Obama because the extreme right is in charge of the Repubs and it won’t matter who they run, it ain’t gonna be someone toward the middle.
Aaron, fwiw, I know Mitt. I don’t like his running on two different platforms in some ways, but I also understand that politicians who want to get elected run on the platform they think will get them elected. It is “pure”? I don’t think so. Is it smart politics? Yes. It is any more prevelant in Mitt than most of the other candidates? No – it’s just more obvious, given his time in MA.
Running in MA for Governor, a moderate-liberal approach was the only way to have chance to win (and he actually governed according to the platform on which he ran); in the Republican party for Presidential nominee right now, a moderate-conservative approach might be the only way (and if he wins somehow, I hope he governs from the more moderate side of that balance). It’s called politics – and Mitt is no different in that regard than most of the other candidates. They all run on the platform that they think will get them elected – except, perhaps, for someone like Ron Paul (and how is that going?).
Aaron, I think the description of wants to be so badly that he’ll reverse himself on any position pretty much describes 99% of politicians. To move up in the ranks, they have to play the political game.
It becomes relative. Who is the one I most feel comfortable with or least hate, even if individually I see some slimy parts to them. They all have it.
For those of us that understand Mormonism, its a non-factor. The opposition to a “mormon” becoming president is the indication how much people really don’t know about our religion, yet the fact there are 2 viable candidates shows progress and will help reduce that prejudice in the future.
I don’t think Mitt can win this time around.
“I don’t think Mitt can win this time around.”
Yep, I agree. But I do not think the kind of Repub that gets a nomination will win either.
I think in spite of the extreme disappointment in Obama’s performance, it will come down to the fact that the Republican-run house shot itself in the foot over the debt ceiling.
2008 proved that the Republican Party is the party of religous bigotry.
The media knows that, so they play upon the ‘mormon factor’ as much as possible- however when Harry Reid is discussed- the word Mormon is NEVER associated with him, unless it’s burried midway through an article about a Mormon Presidential candidate.
The relationship between Mormons and Republicans parallels the relationship between Mormons and ‘Christians’.
We’re very accustomed to trying to be a part of a group that really doesn’t want us (but is happy to take our money)
So where are the mormons in the democratic party?
I believe mormons were more aligned with the democratic party up until the Great Depression.
Harry Reid, the Udalls have all been Dems. Jim Matheson from Utah no less.
There’s a few. Some of the GAs, Pres. Faust, Elder Jensen, Pres. J. Reuben Clark were known to be Dems.
Q: So where are the mormons in the democratic party?
A: “Lame Ducks and the Las Vegas Temple,”, “Jon Porter’s Next Challenger.”
Well, Jeff, I’m glad you are at least watching the Republican side. (Maryland doesn’t vote until late in the process, so I’m not paying attention to all of the candidates who AREN’T GOING TO BE THERE by then.)
I am continually fascinated by the echo chamber on the left that keeps thinking there is vast antipathy against the Tea Party that will lead inexorably to a return to progressive governance in 2012.
Most voters who were NOT paying attention had a W*F moment over the last few weeks when the immensity of what was happening became clear. It’s like parents coming home from visiting a sick grandma and discovering the kids trashed the house while they were out. If Barry runs up and says “Johnnie did it!”, the parents may lose it at Johnnie for a moment, but it doesn’t take long before they start asking themselves, “Hey, what were Harry and Nancy doing when all of this was going on?” And especially, “Barry, we left YOU in charge; we don’t think you can be the baby-sitter anymore until you stop tattling and do your chores.”
The polls that separated people by whether they were paying attention (by self identification, or by likely voter screens), had very different results than those that didn’t, and the latter are moving more toward the former.
Let me give you one concrete example from memory as I don’t want to write a treatise here.
Rasmussen has asked the same presidential approval question daily for years of 500 likely voters. It smooths the results into a rolling 3-day average, and updates the party weighting of all ~15,000 calls according to the respondents self-identification of Dem, Ind, or Rep each month.
Because the poll doesn’t change, you can calibrate its results today against the 2010 election, when the left was saying that the resentment of tea party extremism would shield them from any election disaster.
The average Rasmussen results reported for the week (to provide further smoothing) BEFORE the 2010 elections:
Strong Obama Approval: 28%
“Mild” Obama Approval: 18.5%
“Mild” Obama Disapproval: 9%
Strong Obama Disapproval: 44%
For the MOST RECENT 7 days:
Strong Obama Approval: 22%
“Mild” Obama Approval: 23%
“Mild” Obama Disapproval: 13%
Strong Obama Disapproval: 41%
So Obama is actually in worse shape now among likely voters than at the time of the last pasting the left took at the polls.
Firetag,
“Well, Jeff, I’m glad you are at least watching the Republican side.”
It’s the only interesting thing going.
I am not hot on the Rasmussen poll, even though the guy is a Mormon, I think. Since it is a Republican oriented poll, it is bound to be slanted.
But, nevertheless, Obama’s numbers are down for good reason. but, the question is what happens come November. Since the country isn’t as conservative as the Tea Party and they will dominate the convention and pick the nominee, Obama wins by a nose.
John,
Nevada must be an anomaly. Where I am , church members appear to be Repubs.
Whether the Republicans or Democrats win the White House- and/or the Senate and House of Representatives- depends entirely on the military and economic position of the U.S. in the last week of October. Possibly the first week of November.
John Roberts,
“depends entirely on the military and economic position of the U.S. in the last week of October.”
Probably true. But it will also depend on who the Repub candidate is as well.
If it is the wrong person, the negative campaign against Obama will be unrelenting. Same will be true on the Obama side.
This is bound to be one dirty mess of a campaign this summer until November.
As if winning the Presidency is something any sane person would want at this point.
Where are Mormons to go if they aren’t welcome in the Republican party? It would appear that they are even less welcome in the Democratic party, if the recent poll is any indicator!
Poor Mitt. It doesn’t matter if he and Huntsman seem like the only reasonable adults in the GOP stable. Romney must be able to taste how much the party doesn’t want him no mhhhhatter what he does,.
When all they have going is extremist looneys like Palin and Bachman, a bigot like Cain and retreads like Gingrich and Santorum they badger Pawlenty into the race he didn’t want just to make a mockery of whatever career he had going as Governor or pull the secessionist Perry in to evade giving the nod to Mitt.
It’s hard to avoid the message that the money and the volunteers are great but the core of what animates you as a person? Not so much…
No, I believe most of it can be attributed to our resident Birch Society expert and supporter, a Pres. Benson. Since conservative GOPs were the most outspoken and against those nasty ole commies, the church quickly became a church of Repubs. After all, we were all “following the prophet.” (sorry couldn’t resist that little snub).
I’m with Ray on the issue. I suspect I might vote for Obama unless it appears Huntsman had a chance. Though I don’t understand why so many are bothered by the Tea Party. Unless it’s their extreme measures. That I would understand. But as for their actual platform (something I feel Ray would see) my impression is that they call for two primary things – the end to our war in the Middle East, and a balanced budget? Who in the world is against those? After all, if you note, the Dems thought that the GOPs were making a concession in agreeing to massive military cuts as part of the recent debt ceiling deal. But it turns out, fueled by primarily tea party sentiment, this is no concession at all since Tea Partiers favor massively reducing gov’t spending on the military. But I admit, they are a bit extreme in implementation.
Mark N.
“As if winning the Presidency is something any sane person would want at this point.”
right on!
James,
“It would appear that they are even less welcome in the Democratic party, if the recent poll is any indicator!”
You have a point. I forgot we all hate gays!
Alice,
It’s a pretty poor field at this point. After Saturday, a few will be gone but then Sarah might jump in messing the whole thing up again.
JMB,
Good point on the John Birchers. The tide turned after the Truman election. Huntsmans too moderate for this crowd, I liked some of his answers.
But, the tea party is not just for reduced gov’t spending. they do not want to pay any taxes, have any regulations on business, no gov’t influence on schools, no energy department, and a number of other things which do not fly. They want to reduce SS and privatize it and in reality, do not want to reduce military spending, just entitlements. they do nothing to stop corporate greed or political glad handing that goes on.
Random fact time:
Mormons and the Utah territory started out as INCREDIBLY fervent democrats. Why? Partly because during the 1856 presidential campaign John C. Fremont ran on the republican ticket with the key platform of ending “.. in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.”
Want to know something sad, I went to John C. Fremont elementary school and didn’t learn this interesting tidbit until high school, sigh.
Jeff:
ALL polls are slanted. The point is, since the questions in the Rasmussen poll are the same for years, it isn’t any more slanted today than it was last November, and the numbers last November translated into real world electoral disaster for the Democratic party.
So the important thing is the differential in the SAME poll.
Another example: CNN came out with a poll earlier this week that says Obama can beat Romney by 2 points. The previous poll in the same series a few weeks ago had Obama up by 12. Any of the MSM sources touting that Obama can beat any Republican bother to tell people that?
In Utah, the populace was aligned with the Democrats into the 1980s until McKay finally lost re-election.
jmb275, while there is some coincidence, there is not causation.
Personal note to BethSmash follows. Everyone else can skip this if you want.
Beth, I thought I might be the only John C. Fremont Elementary School attender in the Bloggernacle, assuming you mean the one just off of Redwood Road in SLC. If you don’t mind making your age known in public, what years did you attend? If you don’t want to do that, click on my name and send an e-mail to the address at the bottom of my blog.
I’m probably older than you are, but it’s worth asking.
Firetag,
“Any of the MSM sources touting that Obama can beat any Republican bother to tell people that?”
If you are telling me that Obama is in deep Kim-chee at the moment, I say yes. If that is the way the elections turns out, I’ll be surprised.
Jeff:
“…Obama is in deep Kim-chee at the moment, I say yes. If that is the way the elections turns out, I’ll be surprised…”
That is a fair statement of your opinion, and shows, my friend, that YOU are not spinning. 😀
Watched a great deal of the debate while chugging along on the treadmill tonite:
Each of the candidates had at least one strong point that I feel would resonate well with most libertarian-conservatives. Ron Paul, IMO, had the best things to say, that ALL needed to be said. Will he get the nomination? I strongly doubt it, and I’m gung-ho for the good doctor. Mark my words: IF somehow his candidacy for President gains serious traction, either as the Republican nominee or as a viable third-party/independent candidate, he’s a dead man. I don’t say that as any “threat”, Lord forbid that anything happen to that sweet old man. His staunchly libertarian positions would gore way too many oxes; the powers that be will not permit it.
As for the two (at least nominally) LDS candidates, I’d say “Brother” Huntsman comes across as more mealy-mouthed than “Brother” Romney. Yet both each made excellent points a few times.
Those “Evangelical” so-called “Christians” (IMO they are an utter embarrassment to our Good Lord) hopefully learned that better a “cultist” in the White House than a dammed fool.
Ron Paul in ’12 !!
Those “Evangelical” so-called “Christians” (IMO they are an utter embarrassment to our Good Lord) hopefully learned that better a “cultist” in the White House than a dammed fool.
Verily I say unto you: fat chance.
#23 – “But, the tea party is not just for reduced gov’t spending. they do not want to pay any taxes, have any regulations on business, no gov’t influence on schools, no energy department, and a number of other things which do not fly. They want to reduce SS and privatize it and in reality, do not want to reduce military spending, just entitlements. they do nothing to stop corporate greed or political glad handing that goes on.”
Though I don’t consider myself a “Tea Partier”, or, Lord forbid, a “Tea Bagger”, it seems what they advocate is freedom, especially from a monstrous federal government, and true free enterprise, and personal responsibility. Oh, how utter “un-American” of them…. It’s easy to denigrate and misrepresent a position when you know you’ve lost the debate fairly….
I caution those who decry corporate greed. We’ve already got a crazy high unemployment rate. Start hitting large corporations at peril of losing more jobs. That’s the way it goes. They don’t just keep people employed for the fun of it while profits go down and costs go up (including costs due to regulatory changes).
As to the candidates, the GOP has been highjacked by the evangelicals, and until they release their stranglehold on it, I don’t see any real place in politics for most LDS people or rational people in the GOP, for that matter. Strange bedfellows indeed.
I would struggle to support a bigot in the white house, and I don’t know what else to call some of these candidates. I’m not sure I could follow John McCain’s mother’s advice and just hold my nose and vote for such a person.
But the two-party system itself is partly to blame. As an independent, I see flaws in both parties (as well as bright spots), but any candidate who wants the nomination will have to be or pretend to be more extreme or fail to get the party nod.
Well, if the good Lord is against greed, I’m going to be against CORPORATE greed when I decide which products to buy.
And if the good Lord is against greed, I’m also going to be against POLITICAL greed when I decide which party I vote for.
I think those principles are entirely compatible, and I don’t expect one kind of greedy to protect me from the other.
FireTag-
I could only give you thumbs up once. If I could have I would have given you at least 3.
Douglas,
“Ron Paul, IMO, had the best things to say, that ALL needed to be said.”
I found myself shockingly liking many of the Things that Ron Paul had to say. I like his position on the military and on staying out of our countries business. I also like that fact that he is the only one to say that we may have actually caused some of the problems we are fighting now. I am not so hot on him on the budget issues.
But he cannot get the nomination the way elections are run now.
Douglas,
“it seems what they advocate is freedom, especially from a monstrous federal government, and true free enterprise, and personal responsibility.”
Remember these are some of the same guys that while they say they are for these thing,s also tell the government to get their hand off my SS and Medicare.
The people pay for SS and Medicare. The government, through the Congress, has screwed it up. We are entitled to our money.
The fact is, the bulk of the tea party, like most of American does not understand how things really work in the government and who is at fault for creating the problems we have.
Hawk,
“I caution those who decry corporate greed. We’ve already got a crazy high unemployment rate. Start hitting large corporations at peril of losing more jobs. That’s the way it goes. They don’t just keep people employed for the fun of it while profits go down and costs go up (including costs due to regulatory changes).
Really now, the top corporations are sitting on $2 Trillion in cash, spend enormous amount of money on lobbying, campaign contributions and 529 ads to influence our politicians. They help draft legislation (no citizen gets to do that), achieve tax breaks most middle class folks could only dream of and then outsource jobs out from under us. And they enrich their executives and BODs at the same time as laying off thousands of workers in the US.
They are not our friends and treat most of their employees like dirt. We should have some much pity for them
Jeff:
The government used to pay me to attend congressional hearings to keep an eye on things that might affect their programs. I assure you that I used to have to fight to get in line in front of ALL of the corporate and NON-CORPORATE lobbyists trying to do the same thing. The most minor regulatory change will trigger hundreds of comments from organized interest groups representing both sides of an issue, that will require hundreds of contractor hours writing formal responses to everyone from the Center for American Progress to the US Chamber of Commerce. State and local governments will have their own contractors producing questions for the Fed contractors to answer. And that doesn’t even touch all of the technical analyses that are supposed to connect the political world to the real world.
As long as government decides so much of what happens in the economy, economically and politically greedy people are going to gather at the nexus of power to feed. If you don’t want to attract sharks, don’t put more and more bait into the water in the form of larger budgets.
$2 trillion in hoarded cash? World stock markets wiped out more than that in the last couple of weeks. Spread over all of the corporations in the US, that doesn’t seem especially miserly to me, especially when people who have already approved debts and unfunded entitlements an order of magnitude larger than that are constantly trying to take it away from them to cover those debts.
“Spread over all of the corporations in the US, that doesn’t seem especially miserly to me, ”
It is when you consider that many employees in large companies are being overworked and told that they are fortunate to have a job. When folks get laid off, it is not because work has gone away, but the corporate mothers and fathers have decided to eliminate heads, not work. They just dump it on the remainders and tell them to be glad.
The money is hoarded for corporate bonuses, stock buy backs and to pay off politicians. Oh, and make acquisitions where the corporates heads reward themselves for the fine integration of the new acquired company, not to fill a portfolio but to simulate growth. And to pay the golden parachutes for those execs who are forced out by the purchase.
Jeff:
Aren’t these the talking points of the progressives to the MSM…?
Jeff:
“The money is hoarded for corporate bonuses, stock buy backs and to pay off politicians.”
Why would a stock pension fund manager managing billions for other people buy stock in a company where the CEO and BOD are getting all of the company’s value? I know such a manager is greedy (by definition, right? 😀 ) but how does he or she make her profit? When a company buys back its stock, and fund managers reward that decision because it increases SHAREHOLDER (i.e., grandma) value per share more than seeing the government seize that wealth because they like somebody else’s grandma better, why is that immoral?
After all, you just said the politicians were being paid off. Is that because the somebody else paid them more?
He who buys meat is brother to the butcher.
I certainly agree that the country would be better off if leadership in both the corporate and political spheres managed for something longer than the next election cycle / quarterly report, but I’m still mystified as to why you see it solely as a corporate problem.
So, for corporations to have assets is deemed “hoarding,” but no one wants governmental bailouts either. Corporations keep assets to remain solvent. In going after corporations, we wound the middle class disproportionately every time. That’s who works for large corporations, BTW. While there is a tiny fraction in large corporations who are wealthy, the vast majority of employees are middle class. Those are the jobs that will be cut or outsourced. Unemployment rates are evidence that corporations have already felt the sting.
If governmental agencies were required to do what businesses do every day to survive (balance their budgets, maintain costs lower than revenues, provide a relevant product), we’d be much better off. And clearly plenty of large corporations have failed to do these things as well, given how many big and familiar names have gone under.
Going after big business is killing the golden goose. We need to keep the goose producing eggs.
Hawk,
“but I’m still mystified as to why you see it solely as a corporate problem.”
Actually, I don’t see as solely a corporate problem.
It is a corporate problem together with a broken financial system and political system.
The Corporate problem is simply a symptom of the other two.
The new short-term mindset has forced corporations into a ridiculous, unsustainable business cycle where some of the results are the intense outsourcing to balance the books. But, where I am, our short term focus over the past five years has severely hurt the long term prospects of my company. And has hurt moral to point where no one wants to try very hard because there is no real reward cycle any more. And now, the same Wall Street that loved us a few years ago is punishing us severely. And the employees are powerless to do anything about it.
The Government and Corporations are very different Animals. They cannot operate using the same model. The large corporations as siting on CASH, not assets per se. That cash could be used to invest in R&D, more employees, etc. Not just sitting there.
Governments must be allowed to operate a some level of deficits from time to time. Wars, large natural disasters, etc have to allow the Government to borrow money from time to time.
Agreed, they need to live within their means 95% of the time.
I don’t want to kill big business, I want them to operate in a responsible manner and get back to reasonable longer term outlooks, lower the ratio between executive comp and regular employees and stop rewarding failure like it was success. I think the Government needs to repeal SOX and put reasonable controls in place to catch the real cheaters. And get some manufacturing back to the US.
Jeff:
“…our short term focus over the past five years has severely hurt the long term prospects of my company. And has hurt morale to point where no one wants to try very hard because there is no real reward cycle any more.”
I don’t disagree with any of that; I’m just saying that the political arena has been like that for a lot longer than 5 years. It was that way when I first got out of grad school almost 40 years ago, and it didn’t just start them.
Jeff – Firetag was the one who was “still mystified,” not me.
#37 (Jeff) – some of the “Tea Partiers” do indeed treat Medicare and Social Security as the traditional “third rail”, e.g, “hands off”, but many have indeed identified that the third rail must indeed be touched if realistically Federal spending is ever to be controlled. It’s the very attitude that “we” (the several citizens of the US) are “entitled” to collect ANYTHING. Yes, you’ve likely paid dearly, far more than you ever expect to realise in your lifetime as benefits, as do I. Hey, Federal Employees like myself AND military members (both retirees and active members) likewise wonder at Uncle’s ability to pay at least what we’ve hypothetically earned. Yet we must face the facts – the American public has been royally scammed on SS by the Gov’t and the Federal Reserve. Had any private insurance company ever handled its portfolio the way the Social Security Trust Fund (a practical myth) has been managed, its CEO, CFO, and Board of Directors would be long-term guests at “Club Fed” (if the policy holders and investors didn’t string them up first), and, were anything left, it’d be in receivership. The SS Trust Fund is full of US Treasury IOUs, and Uncle is reaching the limit of being able to borrow and roll over debt. And, Jeff, if you check the relevant Federal Code, as well as case law, you will find that there is actually no LEGAL obligation for the US Government to pay ANY benefits. There is but a political consequence, albeit a very serious one (no one wants to piss off Granny).
There are so many things that we have to get the Federales out of, that only a Ron Paul Presidency AND a (de facto) Libertarian congress could accomplish. There WILL have to be a reduction in all sorts of entitlements and the pension plans, it’s just financial reality. Anyone aged 45 and up who has a significant stake in Federal benefits and/or pensions had better plan on at least supplementing from other sources. At least those younger see the reality and at least a few (the FEW that have remunerative jobs and/or businesses) are taking matters into their own hands. Unfortunately, not only the current President but many would-be Presidents of the “Elephant” persuasion are greedily eyeing private pensions and annuities as a last-ditch effect to keep the gravy train rolling.
I fear that there will literally be blood in the streets before sanity prevails. Or, we’ll get behind a strongman that’d make Hitler and Stalin looks like pikers.
The same GOP that won’t let gay Fred Karger onto the debate stage is the same GOP that won’t let Mitt or Jon near the nomination. At some point, hopefully more Mormons will figure that out. By the way, when did Americans become so dramatic about everything? Blood in the streets? C’mon, that’d involve turning off your TVs. Gotta love the spectacle, though. “All eight candidates raising their hands saying they would reject a deficit reduction plan that had $1 in tax hikes for every $10 in spending cuts.” If there was gonna be blood in the streets, there would already be a million TV sets thrown there first after the idiotic junior high electioneering of that debate. Anyway, I second Warren Buffett: “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”
“Jeff – Firetag was the one who was “still mystified,” not me.”
oops
Douglas,
“Yet we must face the facts – the American public has been royally scammed on SS by the Gov’t and the Federal Reserve. ”
I suppose this is true. the SS program covers many, many people who never paid a dime into it. And yet, it was also created by the depression-era folks to protect themselves. Because American people, by and large are spendthrifts and our economy depends on it, I cannot see another way for the government to protect itself from a large portion of the population from ending up on welfare anyway because they won’t save money for retirement.
So frankly, I do not see another way. Privatizing SSI will not work if, 1) it is optional since many people will not do it, and 2) the greedy banks who caused the latest problem will take the money and run and turn around and say, Oops, sorry, your money’s not there anymore….
If someone can come up with a better idea than SSI, I am listening.
Chino,
“It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”
I find myself agreeing with everything you wrote, which, of course, scares me a little…. 🙂
Re #43 Hawkgrrrl – Brilliant!
Also, Jeff, which companies treat their employees like dirt, and sit on trillions of dollars? I’d sincerely like to know so I can warn all my friends to not work for them.
All I have to say is that it’s amazing what one can realize if one actually listens to people and turns off the sound bites and preconceived notions. Shocking indeed – shocking because someone actually makes sense!!
JMB,
“Also, Jeff, which companies treat their employees like dirt, and sit on trillions of dollars? I’d sincerely like to know so I can warn all my friends to not work for them.”
Sounds like you have some doubt in your mind?
Well, I don’t know who they are. Actually, I know about one. A guy I home teach worked for one of the big banks (I think Chase, but I could be wrong). The management was becoming increasingly ridiculous and arrogant. He left the company (as more of the employees should do). Though I hardly consider his treatment there as “dirt” he definitely found a place where they appreciated him more.
This is the object of my doubt. I have no doubt some companies are better to work for than others. But little alarms go off in my head when I hear claims about companies sitting on trillions and treating employees like dirt. I suppose I’ve just been extremely fortunate. Of all the places I’ve worked, actually BYU had the worst benefits, pay, and working conditions (as a student), though they by no means constituted “dirt.”
I’d start with the Fortune 50. but companies like Cisco, Apple, Exxon have tons of money. Apple has more reserves than the US government! They are not bad places to work pre se. But there are plenty. the one I work at, for one which I will not name. I think we have about $14B in the bank.
Yes, but I know people who work for those companies – and their treatment can hardly be described as “dirt.” I’m not sure why them sitting on lots of money is considered a bad thing. Do you think it should all be redistributed to employees? Or maybe you just think some of it should be redistributed. I thought hawkgrrrl made a good point about the need to have a lot of liquid assets.
“I find myself agreeing with everything you wrote, which, of course, scares me a little…”
Oh, c’mon, it makes you happy. Me, too. It’s what separates us from the co-opted knuckle-draggers who’re turning every policy discussion into a daytime TV drama. I’d vote for a Mormon without hesitation if our politics lined up. So would most Dems/progressives if they didn’t equate “Mormon” with “Glenn-Beck/Cheryl-Eager/Gayle-Ruzicka/Jason-Chaffetz/Mike-Lee/et.al” It’s not like the Utah GOP has done much to disabuse the rest of the country that Mormons occupy the political fringe, and if the email forwards I get from Mormon family members are any indication, a lot of Mormons really do live there. Anyway, speaking of policy, seems to me the problem isn’t the corporate tax rate (which needs to be kept competitive) but income tax (which, when it’s too low for the higher brackets, becomes an incentive to replace real investment with conspicuous consumption).
JMB,
“Do you think it should all be redistributed to employees?”
Please go back and read what I wrote. Companies are sitting on cash, not hiring and making employees do more than one person’s job or outsourcing jobs to low wage/low productivity countries. I’m glad all your friends are ecstatically happy at their jobs. I have a whole bunch that aren’t. And chances are, we’ve been at it a bit longer.
Chino,
“I’d vote for a Mormon without hesitation if our politics lined up.”
Oh my, more agreement…..
OK, Jeff. Here are your corporate “Gadiantons”, but it might be a little tougher than you think to figure out who’s part of them. 😀
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/333389/title/Financial_world_dominated_by_a_few_deep_pockets
Hmmm. Maybe Spooky Dude really is in there somewhere.
Jeff – treating like dirt is IMO a stretch, but yes, I agree that when layoffs happen, the work goes to the remaining employees who are often told that it’s better than being laid off. The only caveat is that SOME of the work does in fact go away because layoffs happen when the economy tanks, which means customers go away. They quit buying the product, they quit calling the call center or they quit traveling. So, most layoffs are related to (or caused by) work going away. When revenues go down disproportionate to workload, that’s where you get the problems you are implying, which most companies solve through outsourcing, offshoring, automation, or yes, just telling people to do more work for the same pay.
Jeff, I’m not clear how you propose to distribute the “hoard of money” you are eyeing. I see some options:
– As JMB asks, are you suggesting to distribute it to the workers (profit sharing)? If so, that doesn’t seem fair (so many work for companies that are going belly up or don’t have a hoard) or practical (what specifically will they do with their money that will help the economy? Will they become wealthy instead of just middle class?).
– Or do you propose the government siezes it? Is the government now in the same business as Somali pirates?
– Do you suggest the corporations be forced to buy T-bills? BTW, the T-bills as they are amount to junk bonds. That also seems unfair to the corporations, and many will likely go belly up as a result (or require bailout).
You can tax more, and certainly in some cases we should, but some businesses will fail, others will require bail out, and the majority will have to cut costs through the least desirable method (more treating like dirt).
#50 (Jeff) – to an EXTENT, “Privatization” of Gov’t pensions HAS worked…the Thrift Savings Plan, which was started in 1987 (for three years, new Federal hires after 01 Jan 1984 were in “limbo” on what the pension plan would be for them), has billions under managements and has an record of returns in each investment category that rivals the best-managed corporate, state, and/or municipal pension plans. Basically, instead of having 7% of “taxable” Federal income taken out in return for a 2% per year of your “high three” (after “fifty-five and thirty”), Federal hires since 1984 were brought in under Social Security and Medicare. In addition, there was a 0.9% deduction from wages for the defined benefit pension (1% for each year, 1.1% if 30 years of more, must meet minimum retirement age, mine is 56, it scales up to 59 for current twenty-somethings). To compensate, the Thrift Savings Plan was established, initially with three investment funds (now ten), with automatic 1% contribution by the Gov’t, 100% matching of employee contributions to 3% of salary, and 50% matching between 3% and 5% of salary. It is not unheard of to see “run of the mill” GS-11 and GS-12 Federal Employees with over half a million in their TSP accounts! I would see NO PROBLEM in allowing, say, current workers under age 45 to elect up to 20% of OADSI, both taxed and employer contributions (not Medicare) to the TSP or a mirror account, and “let it roll”. Older workers might have to be restricted to less since they may get more out of what can be made available for SS payouts.
However, the ultimate “Privatisation” is FREEDOM…let younger workers “opt out”, all or in part (likely letting them off entirely just isn’t feasible, in which case the SS scam is exposed), KEEP THE MONEY THEY’VE EARNED, and let them invest it as they see fit. At least the youngsters have time on their side to compound earnings and endure market reverses.
Why do so many fear freedom and are willing, like Esau, to sell their “birthright” (the American way of life that once worked) for the proverbial “mess of pottage” that is socialism in all its forms? Methinks all too many Americans don’t figuratively “have a pair” any more. Pathetic.
Hawk and JMB,
“So, most layoffs are related to (or caused by) work going away.”
True, and sometimes it is self-inflicted by poor management.
However, layoff happen when management wants to improve the bottom line or move cost off-shore to lower cost regions. it isn’t just because business goes down. In some cases, it can actually be the cause of business gong down as customer get poor customer service from off-shore agents and do not re-purchase.
but, I am not sure why you think i am asking for re-distribution. The nation has a high unemployment rate. Companies could do their part by sacrificing a bit of profit and executive compensation by hiring some workers, who now have no job. those workers would entering the buying cycle again and the economy would improve.
Giving he money to institutional investors and the very rich does nothing to improve the economy. We are not talking about welfare, we are talking about putting people back to work in the US.
Douglas,
The premise of your argument is that Americans, allowed to keep their money instead of contributing to SSI and Medicare, would invest in their retirement.
I find this premise to be false. The US has one of the lowest savings rates on the planet and Americans like to spend money. Even money their do not have. They lack the discipline to save money for retirement. Especially younger folks who feel even more entitled than baby boomers.
Jeff,
Perhaps you are suggesting that companies do furloughs instead of layoffs or underemploy rather than unemploy? If so, I do agree that these are better tactics for corporations, but I’m not sure how we compel them to do them. You could give tax breaks for job retention or creation (some already exist) or higher taxation when employees are laid off. Depending on a company’s severance policies, costs of layoffs can be very high already. My own employer is quite generous with severance. Often employees are still paid their salary for over a year of unemployment, sometimes as long as 2 years. A furlough in that situation is probably a bigger hardship on the employee than the layoff is.
#64 – Though I agree that the savings rate in America is SO abysmal (oft times of late it’s been “negative”), that still doesn’t justify the current unconstitutional mess that SS has become.
It’s the very existence of a “safety net” that ends up being a self-fulling prophecy, e.g., the “safety net” becomes a “hammock”. If nothing else, even conscientious folk are robbed of the means to carry forth a long-term savings plan to provide in their dotage. Also, there is no excuse for ignorance and/or sloth, especially in matters financial. Recall the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper? Perhaps we need a few freezing grasshoppers before the rest “mutate” into hard working ants.
Still, to go “cold turkey” on SS would likely do even greater harm. There has to be a comprehensive long-term program to allow investment options in order for folks that can endure market risk to have the opportunity to grow their retirement accounts. Finally, there needs to be an eventual transition out of the mess entirely, even if it takes decades. Even with all the warnings of financial disaster looming, though, fairly much there is no political will to make the difficult decisions and face the angry public. Instead, our politicos appease the “crocodile” (as Churchill put it regarding aggressive dictators), hoping to be eaten last. Once at that point, then it literally is “cold turkey”, only w/o choice.
Finally, there is more than mere economic force at work. What, pray tell, is “right”? I say that a core part of American values is individual liberty and the ability to achieve greatly given said liberty. To declare that Americans cannot, or will not, act in their best interests, IMHO, is both arrogant and presumptuous. We can’t “dumb down” social and economic policies and drag down the productive in the vain hope that NO ONE “fails”. We have to allow the prospect of “failure”. We also have to have faith in (1) our Heavenly Father to provide for the earnest that are enduring a rough patch in the road, and (2) in ourselves and fellow Americans that the overwhelming majority of us will do the right thing. Else, “This is not, America…” (Falcon and the Snowman, 1985).
Douglas,
I can agree that there are alternatives to SSI. And I agree that it is a monster in may respects because it was expanded by pandering politicians well beyond it’s intended scope. After all It was insurance. And those that were forced to pay its premiums should be able to collect.
unfortunately, its scope and cost has been expanded to cover groups of people who never paid a cent into it. therefore, it has become for many, welfare, not a return on their investment.
Many of us baby boomers created alternative plans for retirement funding outside of SSI, or at least as a supplement. I joined a company with a pension plan. Luckily, I was grandfathered in as they took that away from most employees. I have a 401K, or what left of it again. So I am pretty prepared for my retirement which is a handful of yeas away, I hope.
There are alternatives to SSI. But there needs to be a level of discipline applied on all sides that I have my doubts about.
“Mormons are, by and large, the strongest, most loyal Republicans on the planet”
Yeah, and that trait also makes them the most naive voters in the USofA. I mean thinking that they are actually a part of the GOP…..
““Privatization” of Gov’t pensions HAS worked…” it does work today in australia and new zealand. However one still pays the same income tax -for amounts of $6000 per year- but the employer pays an 11% ‘superannuation’ fund ie a private pension fund. Same for private sector as with the public sector. you guys should look into this more since it is already working fine there.
2. “Prediction: Rick Perry will be the next Republican US Presidential Candidate.
I say this due to the relationship between many conservative American Christians and Evangelicals.”
However you should factor in the other problems Rommney has, his change from pro-choice and friend of gays to now the complete opposite. He is also one of these guys born with a silver spoon, well in his case the entire cutlery set in his mouth. Leaving aside his mormon problem he is still a flawed candidate, a bit alof and by no means a man of the people. For me he is in the George H Bush type but worse. Plus he was governor for only 4 years against Perry’s 11 odd years as governor plus Perry’s other service in congress plus his years in the air force when Romney was a missionary in France…etc
Side by side there is no way Romney beats Perry even before you factor in the anti-mormon bias of evangelicals and Perry’s more radical comments.
“but the employer pays an 11% ‘superannuation’ fund ie a private pension fund. ”
Heaven forbid we should burden employers with having to pay anything in this country, it would kill the imaginary jobs they are creating.
“Side by side there is no way Romney beats Perry even before you factor in the anti-mormon bias of evangelicals and Perry’s more radical comments.”
This is a likely scenario. However, while all the republican candidates pander to the extreme right to get the nomination, they are going to have to lurch toward the center to get elected. Romney could do that.
But Bachmann, Perry, Paul and others would suffer severe whiplash in the process.
Perry said a few days ago that Berneke would get beaten up in Texas (like that’s a good thing) and accused him of near treason. He’s taking serious flack about that comment, and he’s only been running officially for a few days.
The guy has major issues, as well, and it might catch up to him by the end of the campaign. It is doesn’t, and if he ends up with the nomiination, Mormons should do some SERIOUS thinking about their political allegiance – as many have said already.
“it might catch up to him by the end of the campaign.”
Or, it may not take that long…
Perry will continually make a fool out of himself. Jon Stewart called him more Texas than George Bush (he said he was at “Yosemite Sam” which is a pretty apt description). He’s so Texas it’s not even wooing Texans who question his cowboy creds. He’s got to not only dial it back pretty hard but fill the void with substance. I don’t see that happening. Bachmann’s still got a much better chance than Perry, and although she’s a bigot, she’s a bigot in the same way most of the GOP is.
“and although she’s a bigot, she’s a bigot in the same way most of the GOP is.”
made me lol…
but you guys are all wrong (off course!!)….and I’d bett you if there was a way to. $20 bucks that Romney doesn’t win the nomination…..although it is true that he can move to the center quicker than the others (#71), but that’s not what the GOP is about. They want to force their beliefs, ie pro-life, anti-gay, Jesus prefering america etc down eveyones throats….
#70 “Heaven forbid we should burden employers with having to pay anything in this country, it would kill the imaginary jobs they are creating”
I realise you are being sarcastic but unfortunately that seems to be what the right thinks, that ANY tax increase will affect jobs but it isn’t necessarily true.
Hopefully they will ‘get’ real economics before they bring down the US economy and drag the rest of the world with it. As we always say if america sneezes the rest of us catchs a cold!