Thomas
01-19-2011, 01:46 PM
Mr. Cain, a businessman in background and a Georgia native, opened to the small crowd of likely Republican voters by professing he is a man who leans on his faith for guidance, revealing his pastor as one of the top three greatest influences on his life after Jesus Christ (citing Charles Krauthammer of Fox News and The Heritage Foundation as the other two). From there he expanded on his views in several areas, ranging from the social to the economic to foreign policy.
His views on both economic and social issues seem to closely mirror those of mainstream Republicans and show that he has an understanding of the old adage "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Cain has stated, amongst other things that through the presidency he would seek to make optional privatized social security, "unbundle" education by returning education to the local level, cut spending across the board (with the exception of defense spending, which would be approached in a subject-by-subject fashion, eliminating what "the experts" deem unnecessary), and use tax reliefs as a means to "create" jobs (perhaps he more accurately meant a plan to stop the government from hindering job creation in the private sector, but I digress). However, one might find it strange that Cain identifies government as a problem in the hurting economy and yet would not go after an audit of the Federal Reserve. After working on the board of the Federal Reserve of Kansas City during the 90s, one would think Cain would also be able to identify the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing and addiction to printing money as troublesome for our economy. He has made it clear though that he would not hinder an attempt made to audit the Federal Reserve, but stands by his claim that such an audit would yield fruitless results.
Despite being a fiscal conservative, Cain seems to fall into the logical disconnect between the cost of a country that is militarily engaged on multiple fronts and a country attempting to rid itself of debt. Certainly a limited government that has its spending in check cannot afford these wars and military occupations around the world--it's simply a matter of crunching numbers (not to mention the blowback being so involved could have on our country). Furthermore, through Cain's "Common Sense Solutions" booklet, one learns he subscribes to the idea that we are attacked because of who we are.
"Because we are such a free and prosperous people, we are the envy of the world. Many regimes seek to destroy us because they are threatened by our ideals, and they resent our prosperity" (Cain, 6).
Perhaps Cain should read over The Christian Science Monitor's article "What really drives suicide terrorists?" (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1209/What-really-drives-suicide-terrorists) where author Robert Pape draws the conclusion that "what drives them [terrorists] is deep anger at the presence of the Western combat forces in the Persian Gulf region and other predominately Muslim lands." However, I suppose an insufficient amount of information is known to declare Cain in any foreign policy camp due to his claim that his foreign policy decisions would be based on the opinions of the experts from the field.
His views on both economic and social issues seem to closely mirror those of mainstream Republicans and show that he has an understanding of the old adage "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Cain has stated, amongst other things that through the presidency he would seek to make optional privatized social security, "unbundle" education by returning education to the local level, cut spending across the board (with the exception of defense spending, which would be approached in a subject-by-subject fashion, eliminating what "the experts" deem unnecessary), and use tax reliefs as a means to "create" jobs (perhaps he more accurately meant a plan to stop the government from hindering job creation in the private sector, but I digress). However, one might find it strange that Cain identifies government as a problem in the hurting economy and yet would not go after an audit of the Federal Reserve. After working on the board of the Federal Reserve of Kansas City during the 90s, one would think Cain would also be able to identify the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing and addiction to printing money as troublesome for our economy. He has made it clear though that he would not hinder an attempt made to audit the Federal Reserve, but stands by his claim that such an audit would yield fruitless results.
Despite being a fiscal conservative, Cain seems to fall into the logical disconnect between the cost of a country that is militarily engaged on multiple fronts and a country attempting to rid itself of debt. Certainly a limited government that has its spending in check cannot afford these wars and military occupations around the world--it's simply a matter of crunching numbers (not to mention the blowback being so involved could have on our country). Furthermore, through Cain's "Common Sense Solutions" booklet, one learns he subscribes to the idea that we are attacked because of who we are.
"Because we are such a free and prosperous people, we are the envy of the world. Many regimes seek to destroy us because they are threatened by our ideals, and they resent our prosperity" (Cain, 6).
Perhaps Cain should read over The Christian Science Monitor's article "What really drives suicide terrorists?" (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1209/What-really-drives-suicide-terrorists) where author Robert Pape draws the conclusion that "what drives them [terrorists] is deep anger at the presence of the Western combat forces in the Persian Gulf region and other predominately Muslim lands." However, I suppose an insufficient amount of information is known to declare Cain in any foreign policy camp due to his claim that his foreign policy decisions would be based on the opinions of the experts from the field.