Herman Cain

[gobiggergoredder]

edit....double

[Lil' Red]

Anyone who tries to impede on religious freedom isn't a candidate even worth considering in my book.

[carlfense]

I agree with a lot of your points but I don't have any reason to believe that Cain would be any different. To raise sufficient money to win he would have to kiss all of the same hands as any other candidate. In my opinion, it's simply not possible to run a successful presidential campaign without being beholden to many.

 

I also would quibble with a few minor points: Our support for Israel has been unwavering. The overthrow of the government in Iraq was largely pointless and most would now agree that it was a mistake. I would agree that there is (and was) no coherent plan in Afghanistan. I think the people rejoiced about Libya and Egypt because those rebellions cost the US so little compared to Iraq and Afghanistan. Similar or better results at virtually no cost, by comparison.

 

Why do you have a problem with allowing Iran's dictator speaking at a college? If I recall correctly he didn't fare so well against those students.

 

Spending does need to be addressed. So does revenue. No branch should be exempt from scrutiny including the military.

I don't have any reason to believe that Cain would be any different.

I couldn't rationally debate it and I won't even try. I think it is a fair concern and I will leave it at that.

 

I think the people rejoiced about Libya and Egypt because those rebellions cost the US so little compared to Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is no question that the costs associated with Libya and Egypt are not even comparable to those in Afghanistan or Iraq. Hell, they aren't even on the radar. My concern is that we are now getting involved if in situations we have proven previously are no win for us. By overthrowing these dictators, we have made these countries more vulnerable then they were before. I believe that these countries (Iraq, Libya, Egypt) will eventually fall victim to radical Islam rule. The question then becomes who was the loser? My answer would be Americans and the citizens of that country(Iraq, Libya, Egypt).

 

Why do you have a problem with allowing Iran's dictator speaking at a college?

Why is he even allowed in our country? Hasn't Iran been a potential candidate for invasion for 10 years now? It is a huge slap in the face as far as I'm concerned. It is like the Mexican president lecturing our congress on Drugs and Immigration a year or two ago.

I couldn't rationally debate it and I won't even try. I think it is a fair concern and I will leave it at that.

That's fine. Hopefully you weren't one of those people (myself included) who had a good chuckle at the "hope and change" rhetoric embraced by Obama supporters.

 

Regarding #2. We'll see, I guess. Unfortunately not every country in the world wants to be the US. Some probably honestly prefer an Islamic fundamentalist rule. Is it our place to deny them their own choice of government? I'd argue no. It is their choice. Basically we will end up with potentially similar situations in Iraq/Afghanistan as we have in Libya/Egypt. The difference was that we spent trillions in Afghanistan and Iraq and wasted thousands of our troops' lives.

 

Regarding #3. Sometimes the best way to bring down a totalitarian state isn't to invade them. Sometimes the best way is to expose them for the frauds that they are. What harm came to the US as a result of Ahmadinejad visiting? It looks to me like the only harm was to Ahmadinejad himself. He was personally humiliated by a group of pimply undergraduates. Looks like a win to me.

[teachercd]

I think he has great ideas. The problem is, goverment just like schools cant be run like a business because people wont let that happen, even though they should.

 

Take school for example. Lets say you own a company that sells fruit, if you have some bad fruit at your store you just throw it out. If it happens to again then you throw it out and see what the issue is. If the issue is your workers not storing it properly then you correct and if they still dont do it right, you replace them. If the fruit is coming to you bad then you find a new place to buy it from.

 

In schools, public ones, you dont get to just "replace" the bad kids or in some cases the bad teachers. You cant just get "new" good students.

 

trust me, I wish schools could be run like a business!

[HeyBurke]

This is slightly off-topic (okay, way off topic), but I've always been amazed at the idea that private business acumen translate to governance. It doesn't. Completely different worlds and completely different rules. Most highly sucessful businessmen get that way by the very opposite trait necessary to govern - they crush consensus and impose their rules. In governance, nothing is achieved that way - you have to build coalitions.

 

Another fallacy - one that seems to continually escape the middle class, who are most affected - is the idea that the economy is driven by lessening restrictions on business. It is that attitude that has led to the current economic situation. Beginning with Regan, every attempt at "freeing" business with the idea that it will spur economic growth has fallen flat - a failure of trickle-down economics, which, whether that term is used, is the basis of the Republican platform of less corporate taxes and regulation. When you actuall look at times in which the economy has been spurred by government action, it has been through significant middle-class tax cuts - never to acceding to business. Businesses hire when sales increase or the business anticipates increased sales, period. More sales spur more investment in capital and people (jobs) to meet demand. Demand is driven by consumption. Consumption is driven by disposable income. The rich have disposable income even during economic downturns, and thus don't alter their buying habits through less taxes. Rather, they end up simply banking the money since they don't need it for discretionary spending - not to mention that they make up far less of the purchasing "units" businesses need. Businesses, likewise, don't create jobs during economic downturns due to tax cuts - they hoard the extra fund, waiting until the day that people actually start increasing purchases. Currently, there is over 2 trillion in cash or liquid funds being held by banks and businesses. They've either received more tax cuts or have seen previous tax cuts perserved. Yet they are still not hiring or spending their liquid assets. Why? Because there is no reason to believe that there will be a sudden uptick of purchases.

 

Coming back to the question - yeah, some folks will go for Cain under the misguided notion that his business acumen will translate to a spurred economy. It won't.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

I think he has great ideas. The problem is, goverment just like schools cant be run like a business because people wont let that happen, even though they should.

 

Take school for example. Lets say you own a company that sells fruit, if you have some bad fruit at your store you just throw it out. If it happens to again then you throw it out and see what the issue is. If the issue is your workers not storing it properly then you correct and if they still dont do it right, you replace them. If the fruit is coming to you bad then you find a new place to buy it from.

 

In schools, public ones, you dont get to just "replace" the bad kids or in some cases the bad teachers. You cant just get "new" good students.

 

trust me, I wish schools could be run like a business!

 

 

Bad parents

[bennychico11]

trust me, I wish schools could be run like a business!

 

So you wish the students could just be thrown out?

 

Except we're not talking about biodegradable fruit going to a landfill...we're talking about lives of human beings being thrown away into society. If you start running schools like a business and just chuck out the bad fruit when you don't want it because it's bad for business...you start employing administrators and board members who get too concerned with test scores and how much money the school has than actually educating students.

[Malth]

I think he has great ideas. The problem is, goverment just like schools cant be run like a business because people wont let that happen, even though they should.

 

Take school for example. Lets say you own a company that sells fruit, if you have some bad fruit at your store you just throw it out. If it happens to again then you throw it out and see what the issue is. If the issue is your workers not storing it properly then you correct and if they still dont do it right, you replace them. If the fruit is coming to you bad then you find a new place to buy it from.

 

In schools, public ones, you dont get to just "replace" the bad kids or in some cases the bad teachers. You cant just get "new" good students.

 

trust me, I wish schools could be run like a business!

 

I'm sorry, but this post makes no sense whatsoever. Are you advocating that schools be allowed to deny students an education?

 

 

 

to the OP: Strong business mind? Have you not heard about his 9-9-9 plan?

 

 

Herman Cain isn't a serious contender.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I think he has great ideas. The problem is, goverment just like schools cant be run like a business because people wont let that happen, even though they should.

 

Take school for example. Lets say you own a company that sells fruit, if you have some bad fruit at your store you just throw it out. If it happens to again then you throw it out and see what the issue is. If the issue is your workers not storing it properly then you correct and if they still dont do it right, you replace them. If the fruit is coming to you bad then you find a new place to buy it from.

 

In schools, public ones, you dont get to just "replace" the bad kids or in some cases the bad teachers. You cant just get "new" good students.

 

trust me, I wish schools could be run like a business!

 

 

Bad parents

 

You can't just blame the parents. There are many other external and internal factors that contribute to kids not performing well in school. To just blame the parents is ignorant

[gobiggergoredder]

I think he has great ideas. The problem is, goverment just like schools cant be run like a business because people wont let that happen, even though they should.

 

Take school for example. Lets say you own a company that sells fruit, if you have some bad fruit at your store you just throw it out. If it happens to again then you throw it out and see what the issue is. If the issue is your workers not storing it properly then you correct and if they still dont do it right, you replace them. If the fruit is coming to you bad then you find a new place to buy it from.

 

In schools, public ones, you dont get to just "replace" the bad kids or in some cases the bad teachers. You cant just get "new" good students.

 

trust me, I wish schools could be run like a business!

 

 

Bad parents

 

You can't just blame the parents. There are many other external and internal factors that contribute to kids not performing well in school. To just blame the parents is ignorant

 

To blame them 100 percent would be ignorant. I will argue that it is the single biggest factor contributing to a child's success.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I think he has great ideas. The problem is, goverment just like schools cant be run like a business because people wont let that happen, even though they should.

 

Take school for example. Lets say you own a company that sells fruit, if you have some bad fruit at your store you just throw it out. If it happens to again then you throw it out and see what the issue is. If the issue is your workers not storing it properly then you correct and if they still dont do it right, you replace them. If the fruit is coming to you bad then you find a new place to buy it from.

 

In schools, public ones, you dont get to just "replace" the bad kids or in some cases the bad teachers. You cant just get "new" good students.

 

trust me, I wish schools could be run like a business!

 

 

Bad parents

 

You can't just blame the parents. There are many other external and internal factors that contribute to kids not performing well in school. To just blame the parents is ignorant

 

To blame them 100 percent would be ignorant. I will argue that it is the single biggest factor contributing to a child's success.

 

And while I won't disagree with you on the bolded part, I think it is important to understand that often times, kid's just aren't the direct result of bad parenting. It's not like the parent's are sitting at home and flat out neglecting the kid which subsequently leads the kid to not perform as well as a kid who had the luxury of having at least one parent stay at home to take care of them.

 

Sometimes kids are the products of a single mother headed household. The mother is doing her best to be a good parent by providing at least the bare necessities, but because she may be working two jobs to do so, she can't spend time parenting her children. Is that her fault? Certainly she was doing the best she can to ensure her kid turns out well.

[huzkerbob]

I think he has great ideas. The problem is, goverment just like schools cant be run like a business because people wont let that happen, even though they should.

 

Take school for example. Lets say you own a company that sells fruit, if you have some bad fruit at your store you just throw it out. If it happens to again then you throw it out and see what the issue is. If the issue is your workers not storing it properly then you correct and if they still dont do it right, you replace them. If the fruit is coming to you bad then you find a new place to buy it from.

 

In schools, public ones, you dont get to just "replace" the bad kids or in some cases the bad teachers. You cant just get "new" good students.

 

trust me, I wish schools could be run like a business!

 

Bullsh#t, this was practically school policy at Grand Island Senior High....

[Husker_x]

Read an interesting article today. I'm pretty wary of Herman Cain. As much as I like the idea of non-politicians operating at high levels of government, he may be turning into a male Sarah Palin right before our eyes.

 

-----

 

 

It’s sort of fun to watch as the right-wing press attempts to handle the phenomenally unprepared and unworthy Herman Cain with kid gloves. Here, for example, is the neoconservative Weekly Standard, explaining Cain’s cluelessness about neoconservatism on Meet the Press:

 

”Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?” [David] Gregory asked.

 

 

Like any good Socratic neoconservative, Cain answered the question with a question: ”I’m not sure what you mean by neoconservative? I am a conservative, yes. Neoconservative?–labels sometimes will put you in a box. I’m very conservative, but…”

 

“But you’re familiar with the neoconservative movement?” Gregory asked.

 

“I’m not familiar with the neoconservative movement,” Cain replied. “I’m familiar with the conservative movement.” Cain was able subtly to indicate that he knows, unlike Gregory, that neoconservatism is apersuasion or tendency, not a movement.

 

Are you kidding me? A subtle Socratic? Actually, Cain has a tendency to be unsubtly unpersuasive on a cornucopia of issues.

 

 

Here is another Weekly Standard piece offering the candidate some advice about things he has to “work on.” The author presents this quote as an example of Cain’s need to brush up on foreign policy:

 

 

“When they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know,” Cain told the Christian Broadcasting Network last week.

 

Where to begin. Several thoughts come to mind:

 

1. Imagine how Drudge or, ahem, the Weekly Standard would have handled such a quote if it had been uttered by, say, Barack Obama in 2008.

 

2. Let’s say Cain was just joking, which is his all-purpose excuse on the myriad of occasions where his ignorance erupts into public view. Let’s say he actually knows that the name of the country is Uzbekistan. Does a prospective President of the United State really want to make fun of that? I mean–and I hope, Herman, you’re listening–there is a major airport in southern Uzbekistan that NATO has been using as a crucial transfer point for troops and materiel headed into Afghanistan. Wouldn’t want to tick off the Uzbek president, Islam Karimov…because it might make life significantly tougher for our troops over there. Not the sort of thing one jokes about, Hermanator.

 

I know what I’m about to say is impolite, but Herman Cain strikes me as something of a jerk and an ignoramus. He has made absolutely outrageous statements about Muslims, immigrants and homosexuals; he takes the most extreme position imaginable on abortion. Indeed, I have never, ever seen him acknowledge the idea that complexity exists in the world…or that an ability to weed through complex issues might be a qualification for the presidency.

 

No, the guy is a marketer. He had other people handle administration and finance at Godfather’s; he was all about the pies. Hence, we have his 9-9-9 plan, a truly rancid scheme to benefit the rich at the expense of the rest of the country, a scheme that would tax a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.

 

Would it be too much for the Weekly Standard–a journal of strong, and occasionally intemperate, opinions–to acknowledge that this guy is a snake oil salesman? That he’s an embarrassment to the Republican Party? That his momentary strength is a four-alarm cry of Republican desperation?

 

Once again, let me state my interest here: I’d like to see the Republicans nominate a plausible President, since he could very well win and, at the current moment, we can’t afford amateur hour.

 

Read more: http://swampland.tim.../#ixzz1bFO8dBDJ

[VectorVictor]

trust me, I wish schools could be run like a business!

 

So you wish the students could just be thrown out?

 

Except we're not talking about biodegradable fruit going to a landfill...we're talking about lives of human beings being thrown away into society. If you start running schools like a business and just chuck out the bad fruit when you don't want it because it's bad for business...you start employing administrators and board members who get too concerned with test scores and how much money the school has than actually educating students.

 

Folks--this is exactly what has already happened in Texas--almost dead last in the U.S. states in terms of overall education scores, SAT scores, and ACT scores.

 

Teaching from Grade 1 on is now explicitly about teaching kids to pass the test, to the exclusion of PE, Art, Music, or anything that isn't on the TAKS (now STARR) standardized tests. District funding is primarily predicated on TAKS testing results; as a result, the litmus test for "successful" Administrators and Superintendents are scores on these tests.

 

Additionally, you have districts that can't even afford to purchase textbooks for Math, Social Studies, etc. because they're having to spend millions on the new test-taking supplement industry that has sprung up since Texas focused exclusively on standardized testing to determine school/student promotion and education funding. It's a $1 billion industry in Texas, and now one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Texas re: education.

 

So any time you have a candidate that sensibly suggests that we significantly reduce the role of standardized testing or remove it completely, that candidate suddenly has to deal with a number of faceless PACs that spring up overnight, hellbent on peppering that candidate as an anti-Education, evil Nazi candidate that will eat your children and the lunch you lovingly provided them in their Transformers lunchbox.

 

What's sad is, going back to the disposable crux of the conversation, is that Texas currently enjoys a 33% dropout rate--highest in the Union, and even worse than that if you factor in the US territories. This is a direct result of districts pressuring (read: discarding) children because they're unable to pass the TAKS/STARR test (required to graduate). If the kid can't pass it, then the kid is in an educational quagmire that can only be navigated by either passing the test or leaving school completely. And while Texas does measure dropout rates, it has little to no impact on funding or overall assessment of the school district--schools with dropouts aren't penalized when scoring of the TAKS/STARR test takes place.

 

This is also why movies like *Waiting for Superman* are so pathetically laughable. While it's great that there are parents willing to sit through a lottery to get into a taxpayer funded private/charter school, those schools aren't available for everyone, and the schools ultimately pick and choose who to enroll, and they have the power and ability to kick those kids out that under-perform, are disruptive, or have learning/cognitive disabilities--again, discarding children like rubbish back to the 'public' school system.

 

Mind you, this is only part of the discussion that needs to happen regarding education. Revisiting how students with disabilities are mainstreamed, parental involvement and discipline, and how teachers spend classroom teaching time most effectively all need to come up. Of course, since they touch on subjects that people deem as taboo or people simply don't care to think or hear that their child is a problem or barrier to the education of other children, they decide to use their perception filters and blame the easiest scapegoat available.

[VA Husker Fan]

Sticking strictly to what should be his strength due to his business background, 9-9-9 makes 0-0-0 sense to me.

 

For the poor, it's a tax hike, because they've still got to buy everything they do today, and you've just raised the price on everything 9%.

 

For the rich, you've given them a tax break, and no incentive to spend the money to spur on the economy since everything costs 9% more. So they'll put most of the tax break in their pocket. This isn't even trickle-down theory, which I don't really believe in anyway.

 

I don't see him being in the mix in a month or two.