Ronald Reagan Open Thread

You asked for it, you got it.

My only regret regarding Reagan is that, as he was president during my liberal days, I didn’t appreciate him at the time.  I’ve made up for that now, but I wish I could have enjoyed him when he was in office.

Here’s his totally amazing 1964 “Time for Choosing” speech:

Be Sociable, Share!
  • TommyC

    There are just too many things to say about the man.  Over on the Corner at NRO there is a lot of good stories.  I will say that I was a reforming liberal in 1980.  I couldn’t vote for Carter, but I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Reagan either.  I voted for Ed Clarke, the libertarian.  I’m glad I got another chance to vote for the greatest President of my lifetime in 1984.
    I was on the road when he died and saw very little of the state funeral coverage.  But I was back home and watched the coverage on the day of his burial out west.I remember seeing the funeral procession slowly driving on the way to the ranch.  Maybe it was I-5.  In any case, it was a major divided highway.  And what I remember the most was how so many cars going the opposite way just stopped and people got out and stood while the motorcade passed.  To this day, I cannot even think about it without tearing up.
    I searched for a video of that last drive in California, but haven’t found one.  I found a few stills.  If anyone has a url of this, please let me know.

  • Gringo

    When Reagan was Governor of  California, I was gassed during an anti-war demonstration in Berkeley. I never voted for him, though by 1980 I was voting third party.  I liked his calling the USSR the evil empire. The more I read on Central America, the more I liked Reagan’s policies on Central America. The libs who called Reagan ignorant were themselves ignorant of many things, such as the Sandinistas signing a joint proclamation in early 1980, well before Reagan took office, “resolutely condemning” those who objected to the  125,000 Soviet troops invading Afghanistan.
    For such a doofus, he did a  pretty good job of negotiating with Gorbachev.

  • Indigo Red

    Many of us were Liberals in the Reagan years and all of us regret it. He was a real President and a real mensch.

    I still hold that while he was Gov of California, Reagan was wrong to close the mental hospitals, a decision that has had lasting and devastating consequences.

  • bizcor

    I was never really a liberal. In college I got caught up in some of anti Viet Nam War sentiment but mostly because I was of draft age and didn’t want to find myself pounding the ground in an Asian Jungle. Neither could I imagine myself looking down the barrel of a gun pointed at someone else. When I finally did serve I enlisted in the Navy, and joined the Submarine Service just to make certain I would not end up in Viet Nam. By 1980 I was married with a brand new daughter. There was no way I could vote for Carter even though he too was a former Navy submariner. Carter had botched everything. Iran was a mess and the world was laughing at him as he sat by the fireplace in his cardigan. We had gas lines, inflation, and 20% mortgage interest rates. I had hoped someone other than Reagan would get the nomination but voted for him in the general election albeit reluctantly. Back then we only had the main stream media and they were not very kind to Mr. Reagan. I was naïve enough to believe the 6:00 news was unbiased so more or less believed what they reported. The media continued to hammer the guy. I was young, raising a brand new family, and trying to make a living. I didn’t pay as much attention as I should have but I knew anyone was better than Carter.
    I still believe (pure conjecture here as I have never seen any evidence to support my theory.) that Reagan’s people got word to the Iranians that if the hostages were not released by the time he became President that Iran would become the Sea of Iran thanks to a well-placed nuke. The hostages would become casualties of war and I think Mr. Reagan showed them he wasn’t kidding. He wasn’t spineless like Mr. Carter and would follow through on his promise. On Reagan’s inauguration day the hostages were set free and it only got better and better so there was no need to worry President Reagan was in charge. In the day to day of the 1980’s life was good and the country was strong. H.W. Bush was no Ronald Reagan and although he was highly popular during the first gulf war he managed to blow it to the point that Slick Willie slid his way into the Presidency and we have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan ever since. “W” was only OK. At least he loved this country even though he was too moderate for me. Sarah Palin was on her way to being one which is why the media has trashed her relentlessly. They too saw she was a real conservative with backbone and common sense and she connected with the people. She could rally this country and reinstitute national pride. We couldn;t have that now could we. So they blame her for everything including global warming. If she were to win the presidency she would be battling the entire time. Maybe that could be said of any real conservative who was elected. Sarah I believe is also being undermined by some Republicans as they believe it is their “turn.”
    I am researching Herman Cain. He appears to have strong business acumen and sounds like a real conservative but I don’t know too much about him yet. If anyone of you knows or sees anything about him let me know. Mitch Daniels the Governor of Indiana is another guy I am looking at but again don’t know much about him. I would support Jan Brewer from Arizona but I think she’s needed in Arizona. We need another President like Ronald Reagan who will stand up for this country and the Constitution and we need him/her in 2012. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.
    Whell, there you go again Biz. (best Reagan impression I could do.)


  • TommyC

    I am very impressed with Herman Cain.  I’ve been sort of keeping track of him for years.  Every time I see him interviewed or read a transcript, I come away more impressed than I was before.  The only problem is that he has never held elective office.  Who was the last major party candidate for president who had never held elective office?  Wendell Willkie, I reckon, and we know how he did.
    I actually think that there are a number of good conservatives that could make good presidents (including ones who have said they are not running): Cain, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence. Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and more.  I am not a Huckabee or Romney fan, but they could change my mind – Huckabee if he shows some serious small government creds and Romney if he apologizes for Romneycare.  There are a number of others (including some of the above) who will be more ready in 2016 – Marco Rubio, Alan West, and several newly elected governors like Scott Walker in Wisconsin.  Usually I pick a candidate early and stick with them.  But not this time.  I want to learn more about them all and see who can really do a good job firing up the base.  At the moment, I think Cain is the closet to being Reaganesque, but lack of elective office is a pretty big obstacle to overcome.  But every time I see him I think ‘God, I love this man’.
    I think the Republicans have a great farm team.  I think they will be far stronger in years beyond 2012. Look at that list – hardly a soul over 60, and many in their 30’s (Jindal) and 40’s.  I am really optimistic about the Presidency long term, but the question is, by the time we elect a conservative, how screwed up are things going to be?

  • bizcor

    Tommy C
    Yes there is a farm team but I am afraid if we wait until 2016 things will have gotten too far out of hand. Obama’s justice department ignores court orders and his shadow government is doing things behind the scenes that are really frightening. Therefore we have to find someone who can win in 2012. Congress can slow Obama down but as long he and his lawless bunch are in there things bad things will continue. He like Carter is being laughed at. We need someone who will be strong. Christie would be great but I think New Jersey really needs him.
    Obama got elected after only two years as a Senator and virtually no record at all. In Illinois he voted present. I cannot think of anyone who was elected to the presidency without having held prior elected office. But we never had the Tea Party before. Romney has only had one elected office. 4 years as governor of Massachusetts.
    I serve on the NH Republican State Committee and two weeks ago we met to elect our executive board. We elected a tea party guy as chairman. While there I was approached by a Romney guy and asked if I would join his campaign. I brought up the Romney care issue. He agreed it was going to be a hurdle. I think Palin and the Tea Party will be instrumental in the next election and it could be someone like Cain could get elected if the Tea Party got behind him. It is too soon to tell but the silent majority isn’t silent anymore. Plus there is the social media which we never had before. No more just hearing what the media allows you hear. They have already started coming. Santorum and Pawlenty have been here. Cain will be here next week but I will be out of town and unable to attend.

    Stay tuned…

  • TommyC

    I share your concerns.  I think we’ll be stronger in 2016 and beyond.  But I think we have some potentially good candidates this time around.  Much better than 2008.  I think the best news is that we do not have a candidate whose ‘turn’ it is, a la Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008.
    Look, I’m not counting Cain out.  I think expresses American exceptionalism and the the American dream better than anyone except possibly Rubio.  If the Republicans in Congress can do their job and keep the pressure on regarding cutting the size of the federal government and reining in the out of control federal bureaucracy (and Republican governors do the same), then I think the best candidate will be the one who can best express what America is all about.  That would be Cain or Palin, maybe even Christie or Jindal.  If Congress doesn’t do their job, it may be more important to nominate someone who has a proven track record of controlling costs – that might be Daniels, Pawlenty or Christie.  Whoa.  Christie made the both lists.
    Right now, I want someone who would make me proud to be an American (as if I’m not already!), so I’m leaning towards the Cain / Palin types.
    I have to say that I have always kept myself very informed politically and been at least moderately involved, going back to the 60’s.  But I have become an avid Tea Partier, and I have never been as involved as I am now.  2010 was an important election and we did well.  I like to think we learned some things because 2012 is going to be the make or break election of my lifetime. We need to hold the House and hopefully add a handful of seats.  We need to take the Senate.  It should be easy given that the Dems are defending 23 seats to the Reps 10.  But we really need to shoot for an 8-10 seat gain.  Filibuster-proof is probably out of the question, but we can dream.  But the Presidency is the key.  Without it, we can probably hold the line, but we won’t be able to turn things around.  we’ve got to get it, and that means no in-fighting.
    It really bothers me to see conservatives on various forums attacking various potential candidates, sometimes rather viciously.  Hey at this point I’m not a fan of Romney or Huckabee, but if either gets the nomination I’m going to be out there campaigning for them.  I only have 20 years or so left and I want to go knowing that America is still going strong – we’re not just like other countries.  We’re something special and unique, founded under circumstances that will never and can never be duplicated.  We can’t blow it now.

  • Ymarsakar

    I think the LEft has sabotaged this country so much we might as well elect everybody on the Republican ticket as President. That’ll need the pool of skills to fix things.

  • suek

    A couple of you have mentioned that Cain has not held elective office as being detrimental.  Why?  Assuming that he has the executive abilities and the right philosophical underpinnings, why do you think the lack of previous elective office is so important??

  • TommyC

    I don’t think Cain’s lack of holding elective office is necessarily bad when it comes to his ability to do the job.  In fact, he probably has more practical executive experience than any President in a long time.  I also put a lot of weight on a candidate’s world view (and American view!) because that always indicates what their first instinct will be, and I like Cain’s world view – it is very Reagan-ish.  I would love to see Cain run and win.
    The lack of holding elective office is going to make it harder for him to get elected.  That is the only problem.  As much as I hate to say it, the MSM still has a lot of clout.  They will shout ‘no experience, no experience’.  Of course, I would argue that a highly successful career as a business executive is far more valuable than community organizer and legislator and Senator with no achievements of any merit.  When criticized on these grounds the Obama campaign said experience wasn’t important – he was just so smart and besides, look at the great campaign he was running.  The MSM just lapped it up.  They will not be so kind to Cain.
    I was thinking.  Since 2008 I have seen multiple polls asking whether Sarah Palin is ‘qualified to be President’.  Has anyone seen a poll asking whether anybody else, Democrat or Republican, is ‘qualified to be President’?  Did any poll ask this about Obama (either before he was elected or after)?  Has any asked it about Biden?   Well, if Cain can get the nomination, the big theme of the media (besides ‘extremist’) will be ‘inexperience’ and they will produce poll after poll to back it up.
    Cain’s best hope is a counter-attack – look at where all the career politicians have led us.  Look at our debt, all the wasteful spending, all the cronyism and corruption and rewards for political influence – no businessman could possibly run a business this way and survive we’ll exclude mob-run or Chicago based businesses from this equation).  It is going to take someone with practical, real-world experience and success to clean up the cesspool that is Washington.  Like it?  I hope it can fly.


    This is an open thread and I have an open question. Are we looking at another ration book? I don’t mean the actual ones used during WWII, but an imposed or self imposed due to rising costs of commodities, current policies, legislation that exempts by waiver and global unpredictability. “Not content with creating havoc in the U.S. economy, setting Americans against each other, and forcing through a health reform act which has nothing to do with health but everything to do with the redistribution of wealth and an immense increase in governmental interference, our president has now opened a Pandora’s Box in the Middle East.  It may well usher in a catastrophe not seen since World War 2”.

    Click here: Rationing on the US Homefront during WW II

  • Charles Martel

    SADIE, I wouldn’t be surprised if eventual rationing (control) isn’t in the minds of the brilliant Ivy Leaguers who are now running/wrecking the country.

    Some very organized and self-contained communities will be able to work their way around total rationing by pitching in on communal vegetable gardens, poultry coops and materials swaps. I can easily see that happening in my neighborhood and others like it.

    I’m not so sure about the big city welfare class, though—I can’t imagine people in hellholes like Richmond, Oakland or Los Angeles being able to establish self-sustaining gardens and markets without being swarmed by gangbangers and bureaucrats, or victimized by their own New Orleans-style passivity.


    Charles Martel
    Yes, big brother is already willing and able to help out the community ;Banning Organic Farming & Regulating Home Gardening, HR 875 & S 425 (Mar. 13, 2009)
    Don’t fret, Mr. & Mrs. Arugala will get a bill out demanding ‘gangbanger gardens’. Of course, gardening in Detroit, Chicago or Philly will be a challenge with harsh winters. Maybe rice paddies in New Orleans – it’s about the same sea level as Bangladesh.

  • Ymarsakar

    The problem in politics isn’t lack of experience. The problem is two fold.
    1. Judgment and leadership (having a spine).
    2. Having the right people and talent.
    In ancient China, they ruled over large areas by having one central authority, the king or emperor or warlord, that was backed up by the military and economic power of sages, military advisers and generals like Sun Tzu, and various social/public/education works officials. These were the “elite” of the cream, those educated and proven by results to be right when it counts.
    Currently, what our elites call themselves is a pale shadow of a true rulership based upon merit. They have no merit, essentially. Yet they self describe themselves as better than the average. (John Kerry’s “Do you know who I am” demand after cutting in line at Starbucks)
    Not only do you need a leader like Sarah Palin or Ronald Reagan, who simply has the determination to stomp on the Left’s face and bury them, alive. But you need a lot of people with some of the same drive and different skillsets involved.
    For example, take a look at the micro community here at Bookworm Room. It’s organized around one authority, which delegates and branches off somewhat, but is primarily backed and supported by a host of more numerous individuals. Regardless of the “special” traits of any one person, you could not make it work just by using one person. It has to be a networked group.
    The issue in Washington DC is that it is already networked. Networked by evil men and corrupt interests, that is. So if you try to “join the network” in order to “work for the benefit of all”, it’s going to fail. You’re going to get assimilated and made a patsy. First you got to break that network. Then you got to replace it with your own that actually works for the benefit of the US Constitution.
    If you analyze Palin’s debut, you could easily see that while she has a drive and a personality very different from what we here have, she lacked what we had. We had personal experience and wisdom concerning the national and world media. She did not. Thus she fell into traps that Martel, Danny, or BOok would never be able to fall into without being forewarned and forearmed. The two hijack interviews Palin went to with the national media, we all knew what was going to happen there after the first one. The level of difference in results vs the VP debates is an obvious clue. We all should have known immediately what was going on. But Palin didn’t even realize it after it. Because she was seeing it for the first time.
    You see, something she had that we didn’t have, and something we had that she didn’t have. Without a fully networked team making up for each other’s weaknesses, DC and corruptocrats will eat you alive. No contest. No appeal.
    You got to have a solid strategy, an even more solid logistical supply chain, and mad determination to be able to change DC and then America. Logistics details how resources are managed and transported. In this case, manpower and individual talent IS a resource.
    This nation has a huge population of 330 million. That’s more than any Emperor could hand in the old world, using old technology and methods. These days, being able to rule has gotten a lot more complex. Yet people still look for “individual leaders” to solve problems, when in fact the solution set is manifold, not unifold. It’s a kaleidoscope, rather than a single line on paper.
    Complex problems require complex solutions.

  • TommyC

    As Reagan himself said, the answer to many problems is simple.  Not easy, but simple.
    For example, when it comes to the economy, the free market is the answer.  You don’t need a bunch of experts ‘managing’ things – they screw it up instead.  The easiest thing to do (well, not from a politician’s perspective) is to let the market do its thing.
    I’m not saying that there are no problems that require complex solutions, but I am saying that one of the biggest excuses for big government is that things are too complex to let the market or individuals take care of – we need a bunch of government experts instead.  You know, those guys with lots of credentials and no practical experience.
    Read Instapundit’s Army of Davids.  Most complex problems are better solved by an army of Davids rather than a handful of Goliaths.
    In software, where I work, many of the formerly proprietary software tools that were developed by a bunch of experts working for a single firm have been replaced by open source solutions where programmers from all over contribute in their area of expertise.  Speaking of which, anyone out there using OpenOffice rather than Microsoft Office or whatever?  OpenOffice is open source, probably more versatile than Microsoft Office (but compatible with it) and best of all – free.  Complex, sure.  But the solution isn’t the traditional top down driven solution, which is what most (all?) government ‘solutions’ are.

  • Danny Lemieux

    TommyC, I once had the privilege of being interviewed by Herman Cain for a job. I didn’t take the job (it was in geographical location that would prove problematic for my family), but he impressed me no end. I recognized him as a formidable and inspiring individual and certainly wouldn’t have any question about his suitability for the Presidency.
    As I see it, the prospective candidates are sorting themselves out into different profiles, as follows:
    The forceful, inspirational, distill-issues-into-commonsense, get ‘er done executives: Christie, Palin and Cain
    The “Silent Cal”, practical, minimal-government managers: Daniels, Pawlenty
    —- as an aside, I see that economic historian Amity Schlaes has nominated Calvin Coolidge, not Reagan, as our “greatest president of the 20th Century”.
    The populist evangelical: Huckabee
    The bombastic tip-of-the-spear: Bachmann
    The traditional Republican policy wonks: Gingrich, Romney
    Like TommyC, I am gravitating toward Cain and Palin type, but I would be very much OK with the Silent Cal profile as well.
    I look more for the core values of the prospective Presidential candidate that will let them rise to the occasion than I do the political resume…our history shows that great Presidents are made from people of strong character and very thin political and academic resumes (Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Truman, Reagan) and the last thing we need is one more Washington insider.
    Herman Cain and Sarah Palin have amply demonstrated for me that they are smart, have good judgment, good values and are tough to the core.

  • Ymarsakar

    I’m not saying that there are no problems that require complex solutions, but I am saying that one of the biggest excuses for big government is that things are too complex to let the market or individuals take care of – we need a bunch of government experts instead.  You know, those guys with lots of credentials and no practical experience.

    Read Instapundit’s Army of Davids.  Most complex problems are better solved by an army of Davids rather than a handful of Goliaths.

    An Army of Davids actually contains more individuals and more complexity than is ever present within a self-selected elite or small group. The complexity those in DC choose to craft is self-created, while the complexity of distributed systems is as close to nature as humans can get. *Dunkirk evacuation another example of how distributed systems resolve issues, the same is with ants and how they use pheromones and other communications to coordinate from a de-centralized distributed basis*

    The point is, if you take the government experts’ purported solution and you take the distributed system solution, the latter is about 2 to 3 orders of magnitude greater in complexity than the government. If government can create a complexity of 10 units, distributed systems are operating at the 1,000 scale instead. In fact, the government does not have enough parallel processors, agents, or CPU decision cycles to handle a fraction of something that goes on in the US economy. It is by forcefully limiting the US economy to the pace of the US government, that you get recessions and depressions. Even if they made all the right decisions, it would still be operating at the US government “throughput” or “bandwidth” rather than the 1,000 scale factor mentioned before.
    What’s simple is getting the system running and maintaining it. Because you aren’t trying to force something unnatural to happen, the system basically takes care of itself. That is the simplicity from the human perspective. But in the objective sense, distributed systems are often far more complex than centralized control systems (Air control).

    Using a more intuitive framework, there are naturally more people in a CItizen’s Army than is in government. Just by numbers alone, you can differentiate how many processing units are available for work or not.

    This is the background behind more complex problems requiring more complex solutions. How you generate the complexity, is going to depend a lot on human choices. Humans, however, cannot create complexity and have order at the same time. Our hierarchies and C3 were never intended for one person or a small set of individuals to control 1000 times their number. In order to harness the power of complex systems, humans have to let go and leave it to nature or chaos to do its work by itself.

    The more order they try to impose on the system, the more regulations or protocols, the simpler the system actually becomes, given the lack of bandwidth or channel space.

  • Ymarsakar

    Thermodynamically, the less entropic a system is, meaning the greater the variation in temperature in the system’s particles and motions, the more chaotic it is and the greater potential it has to be able to do work. But the moment you impose order upon it, decrease the chaos factor, and make the particles move in one direction, have only one low temperature, or prevent chaotic movements, you have now decreased the system’s ability to do work.
    A car engine uses differences in temperature as a result of combustion to drive pistons, thus producing work to move the car. If the temperature and pressure were uniform throughout the combustion chamber, the pistons wouldn’t move. Nothing would move it. The pressure and heat from one direction is the same as any other. Absolute order has been achieved then. Which results in zero work.
    Metaphysically, people who attempt to impose order upon human systems is basically leeching away the system’s ability to do work, like in thermodynamically closed systems.
    I’m not a physicist but that’s the closest lay expression I could create.
    A perpetual motion machine would be able to create an unnatural process that can reverse equilibrium states. That’s basically what the Left needs to have to create their ideal Utopia.

  • TommyC

    It is pretty clear that we are actually in agreement.  My bad – I didn’t follow your original post properly.  My brain is sometimes a bit slow, plus I have this thing about people who say that the free market was all good and well back in Adam Smith’s time, but things are so much more complicated now so we need experts to take care of things.  That is what I immediately started thinking about when I saw ‘complex problems’ and ‘complex solutions’.
    In fact, the economy is complex.  But no body of experts and no computer is powerful enough to manage it well.  The market, along with an unimpeded pricing mechanism takes into account millions and millions of individual decisions that are made every day and, through prices, allows people to make intelligent up-to-date decisions – to say nothing of allocating resources and supplies to where they are most needed.  Just compare Carter’s interference with the market during the oil crunch – long lines, stations without gas, a bit of chaos.  Same problem under Bush, the market took care of it just fine.
    In one of Thomas Sowell’s books, he talks about how the collective intelligence of society is so much greater than the intelligence of any subset of that society.  I think conservatives have a natural appreciation for this (or we wouldn’t be conservative) while liberals, alas, do not.

  • Ymarsakar

    TommyC, people do say that the economy is complex and thus the government needs complex legislation to solve it. I believe it is even more important in such situations to point out that government is simplistic compared to distributed network solutions and systems. It’s not enough to refute people’s claims. Their premises must be challenged and discarded as well. The premise that government can create a sufficiently complex system of laws that they can “control” the economic ups and downs (refer to Zach on this matter) should be annihilated, not accepted as a true premise.
    Also, the cronies government types pick aren’t even qualified. Even if they were qualified they suffer from a lack of resources to get things done on time. But since they aren’t qualified, you can chalk up government positions and committees as being the grease for their own corruption wheel.

  • Ymarsakar

    It is precisely because the modern economy is complex and chaotic, that government cannot help it anywhere except into a pit.
    Even in a small community, the Pilgrims or James town, centralized planning ended up in disaster. So centralized planning is unable to cope with large, complex systems. And in small systems, it often can still fail due to human fallibility and mistakes.

  • TommyC

    Of course, what the Mayflower colonists learned is that, no matter how ‘good’ you are, you are much more motivated to work hard when you are working for yourself and your family, rather than for everyone else.  For those who don’t know the story, here is a good description:  In a nutshell, initially everything went into a common store and everyone then was given his ‘share’ (these rules are from the Mayflower Compact – they thought it was a good idea).  It didn’t work, for as William Bradford said in his diary ‘For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.  The strong, or the man of parts, had no more in the division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the others could; this was thought injustice.’  and ‘And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men … they deemed it a kind of slavery’.   After going capitalist, so to speak, he recorded ‘This had very good success as it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been …. The women now went willingly into the field, …, which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression’.  And his conclusion ‘Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself.  I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them’. – that is, the capitalist approach.
    These were Puritans and the like.  One would have thought that if any group could have successfully overcome human nature and and established a successful communitarian system, it would have been them.  This is one of the greatest lessons from our history.  And yet even though it is all there for anyone to see, I somehow missed it in all my schooling.  I only learned this later when I got to studying history on my own.
    Obama speaking before the Chamber of Commerce today made exactly the same mistake.  He went on about how they need to focus more on doing good for their workers and society.  Businesses will do far more good simply by focusing on running their business.  If they think providing profit-sharing plans and great benefits is good for the business, then by all means they should do that.  But as usual, liberals see that that being motivated to do good is far more important than actually accomplishing good no matter the motivation.
    By the way, I think being motivated to work very hard for the sake of one’s family is a very good thing indeed.  I guess some libs will call me greedy.

  • Ymarsakar

    And yet even though it is all there for anyone to see, I somehow missed it in all my schooling.

    Don’t worry, public schools still don’t teach that, reference it, or allow it in their libraries.
    And this is 10 years ago.

    You know why? Because teachers are unionized. They did so deliberately because the orders came from on high. They know what they are doing. It wasn’t a “mistake” or a “misleading” accident that wiped certain historical records from the slate in public school curriculums. No accident at all.

    By the way, I think being motivated to work very hard for the sake of one’s family is a very good thing indeed.  I guess some libs will call me greedy.

    It’s a way to excuse their own weakness and stupidity. Instead of improving themselves and generating greater output, they cheat by using influence and power monger tricks to redistribute other people’s cash to themselves, thus calling it “success”.

    Madoff’s strategy is writ large in the Democrat party platform. The difference is, Madoff went to jail and the Democrats are not.