Values or the Economy?
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 07-10-2004 - 1:41pm |
I have also read threads that address the questioned why do people vote against their own economic interest. Why are they content to see the Republicans time and again pass legislation that benefits the corporations at the expense of the people. The answer is of course they place abortion, gay marriage and school prayer ahead of their economic interests. Therefore, Ken Lay and other corporate execs can walk away with billions and a short term in prison. It’s OK that their children and grandchildren will be paying back a national debt. It’s OK that the medicare bull gives money to the corporations at the public expense with little benefit to seniors.
I saw a article in the Washington Post –the beginning is quoted below:
Rhetoric On Values Turns Personal
Attacks Sharpen In Presidential Race
By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A01
BEAVER, W.Va., July 9 -- The growing debate over the presidential candidates' values turned personal Friday, as Sen. John F. Kerry blasted President Bush for laziness and lax pursuit of Enron Corp.'s Kenneth L. Lay, while the Bush campaign accused the new Democratic ticket of condoning a "star-studded hate-fest."
Kerry, who is trying to make values a centerpiece of his campaign, unexpectedly found himself on the defensive after he praised performers who called the president a "thug" and a killer during a Democratic fundraiser Thursday night at Radio City Music Hall in New York.
Friday's debate demonstrated not only how personal the attacks have become, but also the aggressiveness of both campaigns as they move toward their national conventions. With polls showing the two sides still running essentially even nationally, advisers to Bush and Kerry have made clear they are unwilling to cede any issue or any ground with so much at stake in such a competitive election. It also shows how values and cultural issues will play a prominent role in each party's strategy for victory, especially in the South and in rural communities.â€
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38595-2004Jul9.html
My first thought: Kerry is playing into Bush’s hand;Bush must be delighted, Kerry is diverting the issue to culture not the war or economics. What a way to loose, or is it?
There is a book out entitled “What is the matter with Kansas?" By Thomas Frank, It's "the same thing that's been the matter with America for so many years: the culture wars." In his book WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS Frank, a native Kansan and onetime Republican, seeks to answer some broader American riddles: Why do so many of us vote against our economic interests? Where's the outrage at corporate manipulators? And whatever happened to middle-American progressivism? The questions are urgent as well as provocative. Frank answers them by examining pop conservatism -- the bestsellers, the radio talk shows, the vicious political combat -- and showing how our long culture wars have left us with an electorate far more concerned with their leaders' "values" and down-home qualities than with their stands on hard questions of policy.
A brilliant analysis -- and funny to boot -- What's the Matter with Kansas? presents a critical assessment of who we are, while telling a remarkable story of how a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs came to convince a nation that they spoke on behalf of the People.
http://www.henryholt.com/holt/whatsthematter.htm
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/culturewars.html
Knowing the game should make the election more interesting.

Pages
Excellent article!
I'm one of those people that's
"Values and rights are worth far more than any amount of money."
Should I have the same "values" as you?
What are your "values"?
What's your take on "values" when politicians speak of them?
What if my "values" are different?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=values
There is a sociological theory that disproves this statement. Maslov says that the most basic needs, food, clothing and shelter followed by safety are priortized over other social needs. In other words when you homeless and starving, you don't think too much about values. Money, per se, is not the issue here so much as what money can buy.
Did you read the excerpt that I posted with #8 this thread? Please not the movtivation of the Republicans in linking up with the RR. In the "1970s as part of a calculated effort by conservative Republican operatives who recognized that as long as the Republican Party was primarily identified with militaristic foreign policies and economic proposals that favored the wealthy" realized it would be a minority party unless they mad a hange By uniting the RR positions on highly-charged social issues such as women’s rights, abortion, sex education, and homosexuality, Republican strategists were able to bring millions of fundamentalist Christians—who as a result of their lower-than-average income were not otherwise inclined to vote Republican—into their party. Then by playing up the "values" issues they could get elected where they could then move on their "militaristic foreign policies and economic proposals that favored the wealthy."
It is a flim-flam act. Leaders in the RR have become wealthy and thus it is to their benefit to keep deceiving the poor. Think of GWB's tax cut, he convenced the public it benefited all, when it disproportionately benefited the wealthy. Need I mention how he used keeping the country safe as a means to invade Iraq. The Medicare benefited the drug companies.
I totally agree with this statement. What I see is that the people are not reasonably informed. My contention is that the Republicans are performing a flim-flam act on the poor and uneducated. They keep "values" issues in the forefront and talk a good story when it comes to economic issues. Most people don't keep well informed about what is actually happening, they tend to believe what GWB says not what he does.
I'm surprised you didn't play off the first statement: When corporations benefit, people benefit. The statement is not proving true in the present economy. However, when people benefit, corporations benefit always seems to be true.
Edited 7/13/2004 11:46 am ET ET by hayashig
I understand that what your saying is that if the tax cut had been aimed at consumers rather than investors, corporations would have gained more. But I think this illustrates my point. I guess they call it spin.
I am not only uncomfortable, I am scared. Consider the following sentences from the article.
<>
I can't highlight the following sentence so I am pulling it out:
"God told me to strike al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam"
What is God going to tell GWB next? With this type of fanaticism, we could really end up in a clash of civilizations. The man really isn't thinking correctly, he just disguises it well.
If I understand the quote, you are saying that workers benefit more personally from a personal tax cut then from a corporate tax cut. Is that correct? If so...
Personal taxes get cut by $10, I save $10.
Corporate taxes get cut by $5 and personal get cut from $5, I save $5 personally but the corporation saves $5 which then it reivests, generates more profit, hires more workers, produces more, income rises, employees receive pay increases.
What I don't get is why the "caring" liberal left don't support corporate tax cuts. The good of the many outway the good of the few, right?
What kind of values does Tom Delay have, in your opinion?
Machine at Work
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 13, 2004
rom a business point of view, Enron is a smoking ruin. But there's important evidence in the rubble.
If Enron hadn't collapsed, we might still have only circumstantial evidence that energy companies artificially drove up prices during California's electricity crisis. Because of that collapse, we have direct evidence in the form of the now-infamous Enron tapes — although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Justice Department tried to prevent their release.
Now, e-mail and other Enron documents are revealing why Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, is one of the most powerful men in America.
A little background: at the Republican convention, most featured speakers will be social moderates like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. A moderate facade is necessary to win elections in a generally tolerant nation. But real power in the party rests with hard-line social conservatives like Mr. DeLay, who, in the debate over gun control after the Columbine shootings, insisted that juvenile violence is the result of day care, birth control and the teaching of evolution.
Here's the puzzle: if Mr. DeLay's brand of conservatism is so unpopular that it must be kept in the closet during the convention, how can people like him really run the party?
In Mr. DeLay's case, a large part of the answer is his control over corporate cash. As far back as 1996, one analyst described Mr. DeLay as the "chief enforcer of company contributions to Republicans." Some of that cash has flowed through Americans for a Republican Majority, called Armpac, a political action committee Mr. DeLay founded in 1994. By dispensing that money to other legislators, he gains their allegiance; this, in turn, allows him to deliver favors to his corporate contributors. Four of the five Republicans on the House ethics committee, where a complaint has been filed against Mr. DeLay, are past recipients of Armpac money.
The complaint, filed by Representative Chris Bell of Texas, contends, among other things, that Mr. DeLay laundered illegal corporate contributions for use in Texas elections. And that's where Enron enters the picture.
In May 2001, according to yesterday's Washington Post, Enron lobbyists in Washington informed Ken Lay via e-mail that Mr. DeLay was seeking $100,000 in additional donations to his political action committee, with the understanding that it would be partly spent on "the redistricting effort in Texas." The Post says it has "at least a dozen" documents showing that Mr. DeLay and his associates directed money from corporate donors and lobbyists to an effort to win control of the Texas Legislature so the Republican Party could redraw the state's political districts.
Enron, which helped launch Armpac, was happy to oblige, especially because Mr. DeLay was helping the firm's effort to secure energy deregulation legislation, even as its traders boasted to one another about how they were rigging California's deregulated market and stealing millions each day from "Grandma Millie."
The Texas redistricting, like many of Mr. DeLay's actions, broke all the usual rules of political fair play. But when you believe, as Mr. DeLay does, that God is using you to promote a "biblical worldview" in politics, the usual rules don't apply. And the redistricting worked — it is a major reason why anything short of a Democratic tidal wave in November is likely to leave the House in Republican hands.
There is, however, one problem: a 100-year-old Texas law bars corporate financing of State Legislature campaigns. An inquiry is under way, and Mr. DeLay has hired two criminal defense lawyers. Stay tuned.
But you shouldn't conclude that the system is working. Mr. DeLay's current predicament is an accident. The party machine that he has done so much to create has eliminated most of the checks and balances in our government. Again and again, Republicans in Congress have closed ranks to block or emasculate politically inconvenient investigations. If Enron hadn't collapsed, and if Texas didn't still have a campaign finance law that is a relic of its populist past, Mr. DeLay would be in no danger at all.
The larger picture is this: Mr. DeLay and his fellow hard-liners, whose values are far from the American mainstream, have forged an immensely effective alliance with corporate interests. And they may be just one election away from achieving a long-term lock on power.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/13/opinion/13KRUG.html?hp
Pages