IR == 'ON';
Posted on 08/10/2003 5:35:44 PM PDT by Engine82
POLITICS: Raising Cain Herman Cain, candidate for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, may be the national Democratic Party's worst nightmare.
Cain has been described as a Ronald Reagan clone. The first words on his Web site are: "People make better decisions about their lives than government." A former adviser to Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes, he favors low taxes. He wants to privatize Social Security. He would scrap income taxes, replacing them with a national sales tax.
The most obvious difference between him and Reagan is that Cain is an American of African descent, and that presents a dilemma for Democrats.
Zell Miller is retiring. Democrats need to hold that seat if they are to have any chance of winning control of the Senate next year -and that will be difficult if many blacks bolt the party to support Cain.
Of course, Cain isn't assured of getting the GOP nomination. He isn't yet well known and his three opponents include the popular U.S. Rep. Johnny Isakson, whose record is as conservative as Cain's rhetoric.
Still, Cain has an agenda certain to resonate with Georgia voters -and, as a regular on the motivational speaking circuit, he obviously has some skills that could be helpful during the campaign.
Cain would be an excellent role model if he goes to Capitol Hill -a chauffeur's son who got an education, worked hard to prove himself competent and, as a CEO, nursed a failing Godfather's Pizza back to health.
Married 34 years, and holding a master's degree and seven honorary doctorates, Cain serves on the boards of four major corporations and is the author of three books. He consistently stresses that people can be whatever they want and insists that, as a senator, he would work to remove government-imposed barriers to success.
More importantly, the Democratic Party increasingly has sacrificed the interests of blacks -whom it considers a "safe" voting bloc -in recent years to gain the favor of various monied special interest groups. Polls show most blacks favor private school vouchers, for example, but the party's leadership steadfastly opposes them.
If elected, Cain could use his high-profile job to help make minorities aware of other ways that the party fails them.
When asked why he, being black, favored giving workers more control over their Social Security money, Cain noted that the life expectancy of a black male is 68 -seven years younger than a white man.
"If you work 40 years putting money into Social Security and die at 68," he explained, "you have subsidized white males, have no ownership of your contributions and can't pass (them) on to your children and grandchildren."
Generally speaking, the conservative agenda better serves the interests of most Americans of any race on such issues as criminal justice, taxes and welfare, as well as education. Cain would be an effective spokesman for that agenda.
My personal feeling is that there won't be a significant increase in black conservative votership until at least 2008.
2008 - that's three election cycles. While not as optimistic, I would concur, but my graph might go out to four - 2010. Two Congressional, and two general.
Not only that, the sheer power of being able to point to individuals who do not follow the Jackson-Sharpton party line is immeasurable.
Oh, absolutely! Something like this line of thought, as well as that recent high-profile Leo T. defection, start planting seeds of doubt in the other direction.
Thank you for the reasoned reply, as opposed to the vitriol from others.
...And take this to heart from an "old" SP4, sergeant: Up yours.
Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts as you leave...
Precisely. And blacks that "think goverment will solve all of their problems" were the intended audience of this statement not "Old Sarge" who is obviously an old white guy who is offended by any discussion of race.
Please tell me, FRiend, where it's a fallacy to disagree that confiscated monies are ours at all.
Ditto: Then you don't understand the logic behind privatizing a portion of SS contributions.
Then educate me - will it not result in larger SS availability over ong-term?
Both: We all concur, I believe, that SS = re-distribution of wealth on a national scale.
IR == 'ON';
It simply says that a portion of what you now pay into SS will go to a private retirement investment fund, that you control, is in your name, and will belong to your estate if you die, not the government coffers. My father for instance, died at age 58. Of all the money he paid into SS over his lifetime, only $255 was given to the family as a death benefit. The government kept the rest.
Privatizing the portion of SS above the safety-net portion would have the effect of involving more people from the lower end of the income scale in planning for their own future as opposed to relying on the nanny state (i.e. Democrat Party) for their future.
That is what Cain is advocating.
Oh. Well, I'm not a Republican for starters. But I see your point. You want the Right to do the same thing that you say the Left will do. Glad you cleared that up for me, since this means that you are every bit as much of a political enemy of mine as they are. There is no third way with conservative blacks no matter how many or few we are. You are either with us, or against us. You've chosen the latter.
And take this to heart from an "old" SP4, sergeant: Up yours. Just as it is happening to the Left, your political nightmare is about to come true. Now run along, Sgt. Whatever. And I say that at the position of parade rest.
This post was in response to Old Sarge who has made innumerable posts stating how the Right should just write black people off and do nothing as far as appealing to us.
So tell me, Admin, what in my post was worthy of being removed?
Okay, "partial" privatization. That brings out a few questions from the class:
* Is there a downside to "total", as opposed to "partial" privatization?
* If the natural Leftist goal is to keep as much cash in SS as possible, then where is the issue of SS being drained dry? If there's so much retention of cash by recipients dying off, is there that much of a shortfall?
* How is the "safety-net portion" determined? Is there a means test, or income, or some other yardstick?
Kindly do not think you can speak for me.
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.