Posted on 05/20/2011 9:04:00 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile
I have seen a couple of posts on here regarding Herman Cain, and heard him on Neal Boortz' show lots of times. Boortz really seems to love the guy. And I am inclined to like anyone who is pro-Fair-Tax more than someone who is for continuing the current income tax mess, which costs America far more productivity than any sales tax that replaced it ever could.
But I haven't heard Cain talk about some controversial areas where I may well have concerns about his views on the Constitution. And where I have heard him talk on the issues, he's sometimes said troubling things.
First, while he's talked about race, he has not once stated outright that he would end affirmative action policies where he could. He's danced like a Romney on this where I have seen him speak or write about it, like he did here: http://www.boortz.com/Player/100950001/ http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2004/04/28/op_413767.shtml
A candidate's position on affirmative action must be unequivocable, "I'm against it." No "we need to be fair" or "considering race might be okay" or any of that crap. It's unconstitutional, racist, sexist and wrong. Why hasn't Cain said this?
Second, I don't know why Cain's dancing on foreign policy. If he doesn't have a plan for Afghanistan, fine. Who really is sure what to do about Afghanistan? But what would his overarching sense of the United States' military role be? That we must patrol the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, militarily stop Iran from getting the bomb, intervene preemptively--or not? That we should be stationing troops in Yugoslavia and Korea and Diego Garcia--or not? During the debate he wanted to "set up a committee" or study stuff, but that is not how to run your military or state department. I didn't agree with W on everything, but after the China spy plane mess, W got it together and had a plan when it came to foreign intervention: "Have a strong military and use it, or make it clear you can and will." Clear policy from the White House, unlike the constant finger in the wind of President Pollbama's administration, is crucial for our businesses and citizens because it makes clear to us and our opponents as to what we will do to protect our countrymen and interests abroad. Pick a course now, because it makes a difference to some of us, Herman.
Third, Cain was pro-TARP back in the day. What made TARP Constitutional? Why was he against auditing the Fed and then for it? Amd where does he come up with this stuff about TARP being a net payoff for taxpayers? See here:
http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc133.htm
He comes across as a real bankster. I don't like that.
Fourth, what's Cain really think we should do about illegal immigration? I get the impression he wants to leave deporting these illegals to the states, and this is one area where the federal government SHOULD be involved. Building a border fence and deporting illegals are two things states shouldn't have to do.
Fifth, is he a federalist and constitutionalist, or really just a unitary goverment social conservative? Where does he stand on Gonzales v. Reich? What about the Commerce Clause and where it stops?
Sixth, how does any conservative support income redistributionism? He's come right out and said he's for the food stamp program. How does that jive with being a conservative?
Finally, and this is what perplexes me the most, no one has asked him why he supported a labor lawyer Democrat over a Republican for mayor of Omaha way back when he lived in Nebraska. Now, I don't know the whole story. Maybe Hal Daub (the GOP candidate) was a real RINO back then. But I doubt it from his record, and I don't know anyone conservative who would vote for a Democrat even over the worst Republican. Even the folks like me who couldn't stomach a vote for McCain didn't do something as stupid as voting for Obama.
You can live without a car - can’t live without food ;)
You can try but a car is not the same as food - which of course you know.
No one will win an election campaigning against food stamps.
What language in the Constitution says the federal government can take from Peter to give to Paul, because Paul needs that money? There is no Constitutional difference between taking money from me to spend on a federal food stamp program, and taking money from me to spend on a treadmill for Mark Mangino’s fat fanny. Yet we don’t have a federal treadmill program...yet.
Study of history should never be ignored. All empires in history starting with the Roman Empire & including the Third Reich have one thing in common...they ALL ended in destruction of the empires, and the main reason was military campaigns in foreign lands, debt & debasement of currency.
With $14.32 Trillion in debt, and $1.5+ trillion in yearly deficits, the indisputable fact is that we are headed in the same direction if we do not curb our adventures in foreign lands, and real soon, like right now.
You have to pick your battles. Battling against food stamps is a sure loser.
Not that the program is perfect because it isn’t. But I also know people who were desperate for a while and this got them through.
My son met people in Malawai who know what it’s like dirt when there is nothing else. People in Korea eat grass and starve to death. You really think the United States of America should tell hungry citizens that it’s their problem? There would be a communist backlash that you’d like a whole lot less than the food stamps.
Well, speaking as someone who has used food banks in the past.
I don’t have any sympathy. None, whatsoever. I work hard to make sure I have enough money to be able to feed myself. There have been hard periods, but people in general were kind enough to help me out of a difficult spot. And I have helped others out too.
We don’t need food stamps. Imagine how charitable people would be if they saw that someone was truly in need of food, and the program did not exist? Do you think that they would be more likely to help that person as their neighbour? I think so.
Food stamps is a huge bloat and just like any government program, performs far worse than private charities. Or people helping each other.
Ping
I agree the program is far from perfect - I’ve heard that for some people the food stamps are used like money for whatever.
However, seems to me charity could be iffy at times. I’m glad people helped you out. I’d help anyone who is hungry as would most decent people - but clearly, there are those who would not.
Unlike the democrats and their lapdog media organizations, republicans actually vet their candidates... if the left hasn’t destroyed them already... so you shouldn’t worry.
Things are just getting started.
not saying I disagree with you - being widowed with four kids put me on the fs dole for a while, and I was grateful it was there when I needed it. Aside from that one long year I’ve paid Into the system for about 40 years...unlike many lifelong enrollees.
I think it’s a corrupt system, and I wouldn’t mind seeing it go. The USDA subsidizes the farmers, then they raise the amt. of food stamps they give out to cover the cost - so the taxpayer ends up forking out twice. It used to be pretty hard to get in the program, but not today.
Well, Cain’s short list for VP includes Bachmann, DeMint, and Coburn. Bodes well for his cabinet picks, I’d say.
Good stuff, right there!
That would be Tom ‘We have to raise taxes to enact spending cuts’ Coburn? (paraphrased quote)
I’m not so sure about him anymore...used to think very highly of him, but after his comments this week about polls indicating that the “vast majority” of Americans would favor the above plan, I think he might be a little out of touch. What poll is he referring to? I sure haven’t seen any polls saying that a vast majority supports tax increases.
The other two sound good - frankly, at this point I’ve Very concerned about who is going to be the next Secretary of State. Lord knows they’ll have a mess to clean up -
Well, too bad you didn’t keep digging because you would have found that Mr. Cain answered those questions.
On affirmative action, he has made it clear he supports it only in terms of equal opportunities, but not quotas. He does not believe anyone should be hired on the basis of race, et., but on their qualifiactions for the job. He wrote this in his book, They Think You’re Stupid.
He wrote an excellent article on his foreign policy critics called “I’m nit going to shoot from the lip.”. There is no way a candidate can come up with an honest strategy without being privy to classified information. He a general strategy and it is sound and conservative. He also wants to consult with people closest to the problems in each situation and understand what is the goal here, is it winnable, etc.
Maybe that is a non-answer to you but it sure resonated with a ton of people...he has had very positive response to his problem solving approach, even in foreign policy.
It costs the government 35 dollars to provide 25 dollars in benefits with the food stamp program. This means that for every dollar, 28 cents of those dollars are going straight to overhead. Only 72 cents on the dollar is actually going to the food stamps.
Of the 35 dollars, 5 dollars are defrauded from the system, either by businesses cashing in on the food stamps, or by fraudulent claims.
So this means, that for each 35 dollars that the government collects from John Q taxpayer, only 20 actually goes to legitimate recipients. That’s 57 cents on every dollar.
Since you don’t have a choice with taxes, here’s another way of looking at it. 42 cents on the dollar is being taken away from you and only 57 cents on the dollar is actually helping people. This works out to being only 15 cents of the dollar is actually helping people, since you are being hurt with the loss of the other 42.
To help one person with a monthly bill of 100 dollars in food stamps would cost you 600 bucks! Can you really afford to be paying 600 bucks a month just to help one person? I know I sure can’t.
He was pro TARP in theory, as most business people were before the facts all came out. He did not like how it was implemented, with the gov’t choosing winners and losers. Soon after the details came out, he expressed concerns. he never supported any bailout, nor any stimulus by Obama.
He does not agree with Ron Paul on everything but he has also said he will not stand in Paul’s way in auditing the Fed. Those two things do not contradict each other. He has addressed this numerous times and it doesn’t matter to Ron Paul followers because they hear what they want to hear.
Yes he sat on, and chaired a board of a branch in Kansas City. Do you even know what it means to sit on a board? Mr Cain has said back then people didn’t dream of the Fed doing what they are doing now. By the way - who exactly are the banksters? So many like to use that scary moniker, but is it some big secret organzation? No, it is a corrupt few. People cross the line trying to draw some imaginary association Mr. Cain with the likes of Dodd and Frank. If you have some proof Mr. Cain was involved in any unlawful or corrupt activity in the banking world, bring it.
He is all for cutting government waste and abuse not only now but he has spoken about it during Bush, even in Clinton days. You can thank Herman Cain that we are not already under Hillarycare.
Immigration - you only picked up one of his FOUR point plan. Secure the borders. 2-enforce the laws on the books 3-enforce the path to citizenship that is already there and 4-empower the states. The last one is because he understands that you cannot micromanage everything from DC.
Food stamps - he believes we have to move away from the current system. He believes in a hand up instead of a hand-out.
I don’t know why he supported a democrat once, if he did. I voted for a Democrat once in a local race because they were actually more conservative than the Republican, so I’m not going to worry about it too much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.