Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (448748)	10/1/2011 8:41:12 AM
From: alanrs	7 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793958

"What use is it to have someone who knows what direction we should go, but is unable to find the right levers to make anything move?" I think you're mistaking allegory for reality in that there are no 'levers of government' in any physical sense hidden in some closet that only a few know about. There are levers of government in the sense of knowing who the power brokers are and what kind of bribery and corruption it takes to get them working. So we have naivety on one side, hoping that SOMEONE can come along and circumvent the bought congress and corrupt financial system (ala the Dylan Ratagan rant I posted), and cynicism on the other, figuring the system is corrupt beyond repair (that being human nature), and it's best to have one's own corrupt leader than the other guys corrupt leader. I'm being quite loose with the word 'corrupt', taking the thought to extremes. Maybe I should use the word politician instead. However, if one takes as a given that Congress is bought (they can't do the right thing even if they know what that is because they will loose their funding and therefore their job, so will not), a chief executive can either work with that bought congress ( a fruitless Kabuki dance if there ever was one), or he can bypass it and take his case directly to the populace. Not that I've got a lot of faith in the second approach, it's that I have NO faith in the first. So who do you like of the people running? And how would they, if elected, use those 'levers of government' to start solving some problems? In summary, my view is that it is the fact that there are "levers of government" that IS the problem. My further view is that the mechanism through which these levers of government work is the tax code, which makes Cain particularly attractive. And I believe that is an issue he could take directly to the public. Eliminating the mechanism of corruption (incentivizing certain behaviors over others through tax rewards and penalties) is where it has to start, if this mess is going to get better. IMO. ARS

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (448748)	10/1/2011 9:02:12 AM
From: goldworldnet	Respond to of 793958

Everyone knows the government is a bureaucratic nightmare, but having someone approach our problems logically still makes sense. The real question is if Cain can continue to build support and the needed momentum. Although I have also been critical of the chances, I still have to admit I'm intrigued with the possibility. * * *

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (448748)	10/1/2011 7:40:11 PM
From: Geoff Altman	6 Recommendations Respond to of 793958

What use is it to have someone who knows what direction we should should go, but is unable to find the right levers to make anything move? He could have Newt as Vice President to guide him through the process. IMO his political greenness just means that he hasn't been corrupted yet. Yesterday I talked to a woman at work that had been a democrat and probably voted that way most of her life. She'd just switched to being an independent.... After hearing Cain in the last debate she sent him 100 bucks, which was no small sum to her.... Just pointing out that there's much appeal there to both conservatives and independents.