Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Herman Cain :: Townhall.com Columnist
Media Consider American Businessmen ‘Bad Company’
by Herman Cain
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The American dream is alive and well, though you wouldn’t know it from watching the network news.

Liberal election rhetoric is counting on middle-class Americans believing someone is out to get them – and that they need the government’s protection. Recently we’ve seen this in media coverage of lenders, which ABC News called “the home wreckers.”

“Locking families out of the American dream by offering mortgages too good to be true,” was anchor Charles Gibson’s description.

Sure, there are unscrupulous lenders out there. But to describe an entire class of businesspeople in such a way is unforgivable.

If it were not for hard-working businessmen and women, we would not have grocery stores stocked with food, cars, our computers, houses or any of our comforts of life.

There’s an old African proverb that says it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it takes a whole country full of businessmen to sustain America. They keep America – and others around the world – eating, driving, playing, and building homes.

But many Americans don’t view businessmen that way. A 2007 Harris Poll revealed that in a list of occupations rated for “very great prestige,” businessmen came in 15th place, after farmers and lawyers. Those specifically in the financial sector ranked even lower – stock brokers, accountants and bankers came in 19th, 20th and 21st, respectively.

The unfortunate truth is that the crimes and scandals of a few – like Enron and WorldCom – have tainted the nation’s view of all in the same profession.

The news media have been the constant bearers of bad news and negative portrayals of businessmen. Yes, Enrons do happen, but very few executives are involved in such scandals. Watching CNN, however, you might think crime was practically a job requirement. On CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight” in 2006, 76 percent of the show’s portrayals of businessmen were negative. The program had criminal businessmen seven times as often as it featured businessmen-philanthropists.

That interesting nugget comes from a study by the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute, which looked at an entire year of evening newscasts. It found when businessmen were included in the news, they were often under attack.

This in-depth study, which took thousands of man-hours, identified journalists’ portrayals of businessmen and women and evaluated those that had a tilt toward the positive or the negative. Of those, it found 57 percent were negative. Businessmen were described as “fat cats” or “another corporate crook,” and stories were laced with worries about “stratospheric sums” of “CEO pay run amok.”

From company profits to consumer prices, money was the name of the game. CBS even did a story that scolded a multibillionaire for spending his money! Maybe those reporters didn’t learn in Economics 101 that spending money creates jobs for countless people. Instead, CBS got huffy about one businessman’s buying habits.

Everybody’s always making too much money to suit journalists … never mind that some of those network anchors are pulling in tens of millions themselves. According to TV Guide, CBS’s Katie Couric makes $15 million a year, while NBC’s Brian Williams makes $8 million.

No, the nightly newsers didn’t focus on the positive. Despite more than $51 billion pledged from the most generous Americans in 2006, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, journalists portrayed businessmen as criminals one-and-a-half times more often than they were portrayed as philanthropists.

I know businessmen who give generously, and they wouldn’t want to be featured on the evening news. They prefer to give without widespread fame. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t good stories about businessmen out there – stories that enterprising reporters could dig up – about those who build companies and communities.

Other nations would love to have a chance at this system of free enterprise that our media take for granted and even attack. Bill George, a Harvard Business School professor and businessman himself, wrote about that system on BusinessWeek.com August 5.

“Every government leader and business executive I have met in developing countries –from the mayor of Beijing to the ruler of the United Arab Emirates – is eager for one thing: U.S.-style capitalism to build their economies, create jobs and wealth for their people, and bring their countries fully into the global trading network,” George wrote. “From Kazakhstan to Vietnam, people are hungry for capitalism.”

People from around the world come here to work. That coveted capitalism that creates jobs and wealth is maintained by hard-working businessmen and women – most of whom stay out of the spotlight. They’re not scandal-ridden. They’re inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs. They provide jobs to more than 100 million Americans. And they give back to their communities.

Unfortunately, they’re just not making headlines.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Herman Cain is the National Chairman of the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute. He is the former president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Inc., and currently is CEO and president of T.H.E. New Voice, Inc., a business and leadership consulting company.

Be the first to read Herman Cain's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

It's Not Just a Few Scandals
During the Bush II administration the differential between CEO pay and average worker pay has increased by several hundred percent. At the same time, deregulation philosophy has removed or weakened consumer protections, while business executives have actually written some of our national policy and law. Meanwhile, business has sent American jobs offshore and has given princely rewards to the executives who did the outsourcing. Workers are told not to take their sick days or vacation days if they expect to have a job when they return. Companies are ridiculed by the conservative media for behaving in a socially responsible way; the only responsibility of business, we are told, is to make a profit. Businesses are withdrawing health care plans and retirement annuities: bad for business. Labor unions are viewed as bad and have become much less powerful than in decades.

Pendulums swing, and the conservative movement has caused America's pendulum to swing 'way far in favor of business. Meanwhile, people suffer. But business is the boss now, make no mistake. I subscribe to two major daily papers, and both of them are now 50% ads in the entire front section. Television is 30% ads (my enraged husband sits with a stop-watch timing commercials). The theme of Cain's article is that business is being victimized by the media. Business is nobody's victim. It's in charge. And when Corporate America is ruthless, as it often is, it shouldn't expect to be loved.

Lilly
You're crazier than a bedbug - but happy Thanksgiving anyway! (Was is Stalin or Lenin that always railed against profits? Profit can be expressed as the cost of efficiency in Economic terms. Econ 101! Educate yourself.)

Would the millions...
of people employed by all those evil corporations love to lose their jobs? Or maybe the millions of people who have 401Ks who invest in all those evil corporations like to see them go under?

I am not employed by a corporation nor do I have a 401K. As a self employed person, making a profit means I can take care of my family, hire more help, and have some left over to help those in need, and pay my taxes, that is if taxes don't go up.

Liberals
Liberalism is a mental disease.

People in the news business are liberals.

First, these jokers are well paid employees of large (and profitable) companies themselves.

Second, "evil" corporations support those salaries through the purchase of advertising.

Mental disease is the only explanation.

Yes FOWG
liberalism is a mental disease/disorder. One idea would be to get the "big drug" companies to work on a pill or vaccine. Too bad it's not that easy. There is no cure for stupidity...

To Livefreeordie
I've read over my post and I can't think which of my statements you might find unreasonable since everything I said is easily documented. Maybe the problem is that we see the world differently. The United States is a two-party nation with half the country (Democrats) wanting power to rest with the federal government and the other half (Republicans) wanting it to rest with business. I appreciate that business creates jobs and provides all the things we buy, but when business isn't controlled by laws or ethics it can also be harmful to people. I believe that the people should come first. And much of what business does that "helps the economy" is arguably bad for people.

Reply to lilly's 2nd comment
Lilly,

Your portrail of the Democrats leads to a totalitarian government. But I guess most Dems (libs) can't handle freedom and need a babysitter.

Your second assumption is incorrect. Most Republicans (Conservatives) want freedom to start a business and expect adults to act, well like adults. That means they taking responsibility for making stupid mistakes and not having PaPa big government to take care of you.

Maybe you should grow up first and stop looking for a babysitter.

Wild Wil
All government is not totalitarian. Are you perhaps resentful of government authority?

Adults are free to start a business. What's stopping them? But that business should not be allowed to sell what is harmful to consumers, whether they import it or manufacture it. That business should provide a safe workplace, decent working conditions, and fair compensation to its workers. That business should honor its contractual obligations. Business has often violated all of the above until it was forced by government to do the right thing. But on townhall I often see the argument that business has no moral, social, or ethical obligation at all---that its only task is to make money, as much as possible.

Re having government "take care of" people, I have yet to meet a single conservative who refused to accept Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Workman's Compensation, or Medicare the instant he could get it. I don't know any conservatives who refuse to let their parents accept Medicare, opting instead to pay Papa's hospital bills out-of-pocket. The attitude I hear from them is "This is mine because I earned it". When a hurricane blows down their house, they can't make a government claim fast enough. And they take agricultural subsidy as if it were their birthright.

Lily says
".....when business isn't controlled by laws or ethics it can also be harmful to people".

First of all, Lily, the same is true about government. Business is already regulated to the point of strangulation by government, (witness the businesses that are relocating off shore). Ethics are required in all facets of our lives and have been diminished by Liberal government policys which have contributed to the demise of our education system and the weakening of the family unit.


reply to Lily
Meanwhile, business has sent American jobs offshore and has given princely rewards to the executives who did the outsourcing.

Above is your quote and you like to blame the current administration for this phenomenon. Do you really think this did not take place in the 90's which were dominated by Bill and Hillary's White House ?

Also, you state in another posts that conservatives do not refuse social security. Are you serious? My wife and I raised a family and paid taxes our entire life. Since we had no choice but to fund that system (which I support by the way) how could I not take the payout (If I live that long). By the way, if I do not live to receive my social security where does that money go?

A former liberal.............................

Willy Nilly Lilly
I rarely post on Townhall, mainly because my feelings are usually expressed by individuals much smarter than me. The only constant theme that seems unavoidable is the amazingly ignorant rantings by the infamous Lilly.

I can't help wondering if she doesn't post just to get the juices flowing and raise the dander of the 80-90% conservatives on this site. I mean, is it possible someone can actually believe the things she says. I've read countless posts from her and have never found anything of redeeming value. Her understanding of economics, free markets and capitalism is at best pedestrian, but more likely non-existent. She usually defends her beliefs/opinions, by challenging everyone to "refute" her statements. She hasn't quite figured out that your opinions don't represent facts. That's why there called opinions.

I personally refuse to argue with someone that is so throughly unqualified for the contest.

Ah...
I think the point of the article is that situations like Enron are the exception, not the rule.
(Hello!! That's why they were "news")

Most business has a goal to prosper, to stay in business, to provide goods and services, to provide livlihood for its employees.

It is Lilly's wont to pick the exception and cite it as the rule. Sometimes she has to do alot of digging to find her examples.
Most of us think her harmless, disingenous at worst, sometimes maddening torsion of logic, but probably a victim of having to derive opinion solely from reading rather than experience.

Party-line Lilly
"the conservative movement has caused America's pendulum to swing 'way far in favor of business. Meanwhile, people suffer."


Previously, and to this day, the lefty pendulum has used just this MSM caricature to portray business as evil fat cats out to grind the faces of the poor. What actually grinds those faces is the liberal habit of thrusting their heads into the sand as deeply as possible, and trusting to government to loot all businesses in hopes of raking off some unearned capital for themselves.


When 'intellectuals' such as Lilly seize political control, the economy gets progressively worse and eventually crashes - note Zimbabwe and the old Soviet Union as examples (yes Lilly, 'people suffer' in such places - except the commissars). Recent India and China provide an example of the rebound of citizen well-being that occurs when the commissars step back and businesses apply economic self-interest to providing goods and services for a profit.

The ingenuity of the community of individual entrepreneurs vastly exceeds that of the groupthink intellectuals who overdose on the drug of central planning and command economies. Businessmen can constructively respond to economic changes - Truman seized the steel mills and made things worse. Now the UN is making a run to grab political control via the global warming and environmental scares, plus to grab economic control via backdoor taxing power in the Law of the Sea treaty. No good. Entrepreneurial businesses need maximum room for creativity, not being slaughtered by the political drones who invented the concept of killing the goose to grab the golden eggs soonest.

Does Lilly
really think business bad/government good? Such simplistic thinking. It follows then by her thinking that bad and evil people pick business as a career and good and caring people (only if democrats) go into government or other non-profits. I suppose she supports the UN also.

Hank
I have an 1858 book on housekeeping that instructs the housewife how to remove the gravel from dried peas and how to tell when the grocery has extended flour by adding plaster of Paris. I also have a facsimile of a 1910 Sears catalog which offers for sale a nostrum to cure cancer, infertility, tuberculosis, boils, and hair loss---all the same drug. The American novel "The Jungle" describes conditions in a meat-packing house pre-FDA. Until government intervention controlled business, the profit motive (eg greed) led business into unethical practices. Are things better now? They were until Bush II opened the floodgates to corporate greed (although actually it was Reagan who started the anti-regulation movement, and conservatives have been bad-mouthing regulatory law for forty years now).

Today? Read the paper. Mattel didn't know its Chinese suppliers were working on the cheap? Prada didn't know its expensive products marked "Made in Italy" are really made in China? And last year after I signed a two-year contract with a cell phone company, four months later I got a phone call announcing that rates were going up, service was going down, and new equipment would be required---"we are doing this for business reasons". A little guy consumer is going to sue them for breach of contract? Of course not. Same year, people who had served a company for thirty years on the promise of a retirement annuity were being told, "Sorry, no annuity---new policy".

And I'm only half-impressed by the argument that Corporate America enriches our lives with its products because most of the stuff that's advertised and sold is junk nobody needs. Rigid Socialism or Communism is indeed bad. But unfettered Capitalism is also bad. I think we need a compromise, and under Bush II we haven't been getting it.

Loco
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

I bet your name fits real well, too.

for lilly
lilly writes: "The United States is a two-party nation with half the country (Democrats) wanting power to rest with the federal government and the other half (Republicans) wanting it to rest with business."

Gee, I guess the states and the cities are totally powerless in your model, eh?

Besides, you're equating two different kinds of power. The Federal government has the power of FORCE. Only the government can send armed men to have you arrested and thrown in jail (domestically), or send armed soldiers to wage war (in foreign policy).

Corporations cannot force you to do anything. If you want to quit your job right in the middle of the most important project or contract your employer ever had, he can't stop you. If you want to buy a Macintosh computer, Dell can't stop you. If you want to buy a Dell PC, Apple can't stop you.

The only power that private companies have is the power to PERSUADE: Persuade you to buy their products, persuade you to go work for them. And that is inherently less alarming than Federal power. The IRS doesn't "persuade" you to pay your taxes. You do it under threat of jail.

It is YOU statists who have expanded the power of the Federal Government to grant special favors to politically well-connected businesses. Adam Smith railed against that idea. But folks like you didn't listen to him. The result is an array of subsidies to business that put the power of the Federal Government behind their businesses.



Our capitalism...
...is not unfettered. It is fettered to the point of destruction.

The problem is our government's failure to provide a fair and accessible court system. This is one of the few legitimate jobs of government. The failure of government in this regard is so complete that attorneys are universally consistent in claiming that, "Justice has nothing to do with our legal system."

Does Lilly have a point ? ?
Ya know the line about even a blind hog . . .

Underlying Lilly's rants against business is an honest fear of the alignment of business interests and government control. This is a legitimate concern.

Many of us rail against the Clinton administration for allowing missle technology to be sold to the Chinese. It was a private business, however, that did the selling. It was the constructive cooperation between the financial interest of the business and the corrupt nature of the Clinton administration that fueled this transaction.

Financial institutions have had sympathizers in Congress for some time. By Federal law, a consumer has 30 days to catch a bank error on their account. If you notice that they mistakenly deducted 10K from your account in 31 days - tough luck. By contrast, if they error is in the reverse, the bank has eternity to correct it.

Currently sub prime lenders are lobbying for Government Bailouts because they made high risk loans. Anyone care to wager on whether or not there isn't some form of taxpayer bailout on that one?

I'm a pro-business person. I've operated my own firm for 15 years. Capitalism is by far the best way to produce wealth and provide for people at all levels. Yet we need to be vigilant that Government and Business remain separate in order to perserve the true benefits of the free market.

LILLY

.....Just a few quick points for you to ponder ...

...Work create wealth ...

...Government can only tax wealth ...

...Compassion is the willing charity of individuals ...

...Government cannot be compassionate ...it can only coerse in the name of compassion ...

...most of the ills you attribute to Business are caused by Faustian contracts with Government because of over regulation ...

.....You say you read the NYT and watch FOX because you want to see both sides before you decide ...why is it that you always side with the NYT? ...is FOX never right? ...

...I suggested that you read "The Capitalist Manifesto" by Andrew Bernstein to try to see the positive side of Capitalism ...my bet is that you will never read it because you are a fraud ...you do not want to see both sides because your mind is already made up and there is only one side in your mind ...I pity the poor students who had to endure your rants ...

...In a battle of wits ...you are unarmed .....COLOSSUS

Sad, but true
So strong is our desire to have someone agree with our opinion, we will suspend all belief, and continue in our quest to enlighten even the most ignorant among us.

The percentage of postings attempting to convince Lilly of the errors of her way is amazing. As I stated earlier, I refuse to engage in a mental battle with someone so obviously deficient.

The best advice I can give to anyone on this site is to simply ignore her. It's patently obvious she doesn't possess the brainpower necessary to understand what's being written. Even if she did, does anyone believe she'd admit when she was wrong. My hope is that if she is reduced to nothing more than an afterthought, she will finally go away.

Hey, a guy can dream can't he?

CEOs are cursed for their pay
but Britney Spesrs takes in $750,000 a month without a hit record and no one calls for her to be investigated (althogh she's a druggie who's lost custody of her children)) for fraud.

Tom Cruise makes $30,000,000 a picture, and maybe a nice guy, but he actually does nothing but smile like a pretty boy, for which is he getting little old.

Very few get excited that a football player gets multi-millions per season for running up and down a field, but if a company president gets a retirement package with a golf membership in it, the MSM cries for Congressional investigation.

The truth is virtually EVERY Congressman (both houses) is a gadzillionarie and no more in touch with reality than my left foot. The closest they get to real people is their maids and pool cleaners.

What a Crock of Sh*t
The gap between the Rich and Poor is wider than ever,the middle class is disappearing and yet the American Dream is alive, B.S.Read Joeseph E Stiglitz article in Vanity Fair for a eye opener.Bush and this Government has made it so we will be paying for the Debt long after our kids are Dead and gone.But the bigger problem is Mrs. Clinton will do nothing to reverse that problem,it will never change until the American people realize that our Politicians and Government have turned its back on the American people,the so called tax breaks benefit only the rich and the hard working middle class get no relief,the Government has made what was a Technological power house of the late 20th century weak by not investing in our Education system.We lack engineers and Scientists and people with skills we need to compete with China and India,we have not invested in the kinds of basic research that maid us a powerhouse of the 20th century.Yes we have the worlds richest economy but at the expence of our grandchildren who will be paying for the 850 billion dollar trade deficit, a national debt that is out of control and growing.The bottom line is that we will be foolish if we think that Hillary Clinton will do anything to fix this problem,and we must do a better job of picking our next President if we are going to have a AMERICAN DREAM.

More cry babies
with an entitlement mentality always looking for someone to blame: immigrants, business, evangelicals and what not. Here's a conservative who has never taken a dime in any sort of help from the government. And no, I was not born with a silver spoon, or even copper one for that, in my mouth.

for Proud American
Proud American writes: "We lack engineers and Scientists and people with skills we need to compete with China and India,we have not invested in the kinds of basic research that maid us a powerhouse of the 20th century."

Oh, please.

When it comes to high technology, America remains unsurpassed.

The whole world uses American software, American microprocessors, American pharmaceuticals, American aircraft. Go ahead, name all the countries in the world that don't run their computers with American software applications from Microsoft, Adobe, etc. Besides North Korea, that is.

If China can outperform us in manufacturing cheap junk for sale in Wal-Mart, that's fine with me. Those aren't the industries of the future. Those are the industries of the past.


Government Spending
is out of control, Proud American, and it really irks me that Bush has spent so much on increasing social programs that do nothing but trap people into government dependence. Looking back, this is the platform that he ran on (a uniter not a divider = giving into the dems on social programs). The Compassionate conservative thing was code word for "I'll expand programs that are sure not to work." However, even as I disagree on NCLB, Medicaid expansions and the rest, at least he realizes that making sure our military is strong will allow us to operate from a position of strength in the world. A mixed bag from this president.

For SteveL
Actually, corporations CAN force us to do quite a lot. One way they do it is by giving or withholding money. About a week ago I was reading that business was no longer going to contribute its usual $50,000 to an arts program. I don't know the particulars of that situation, but historically business has withheld such contributions as a way of controlling what work the artists produce. Sometimes the business is responding to boycotts etc by consumers. This puts "popular reception" in the role of deciding what is good art, and popular reception has not usually been a competent judge of what will endure and continue to speak after time has passed.

A couple of years ago conservatives found that Whirlpool was contributing to Planned Parenthood so conservatives were asked not to patronize Whirlpool. I don't know how that ended, but what was meant to happen was pressure on Whirlpool so that Whirlpool would stop giving to Planned Parenthood.

Soft drink companies have donated to schools in exchange for advertising and SELLING their products---in elementary schools.

Business may be philanthropic but it is not altruistic: it uses its donations to control commercial and social agendas. I would rather see funds awarded by a government agency.

Fear Sells
The point of Cain's piece is that the media plays up the exceptional corporate misdeed to such heights that readers conclude it's "normal". But the media does that with ~every~ issue.

Years ago, a study was done on males who watched far more TV than the average. These men consistently overestimated the amount of crime in their neighborhoods, size of the police force, etc.

Check out the front page of any daily newspaper (especially the headlines above the fold). Watch the first few minutes of any local TV news broadcast. The media uses Fear to monopolize our attention. And so does our political leadership.

Why? Two words. Power. Control.

lilly
"Actually, corporations CAN force us to do quite a lot. One way they do it is by giving or withholding money."

Actually, we CAN force corporations to do quite a lot. One way they do it is by giving or withholding money.

"About a week ago I was reading that business was no longer going to contribute its usual $50,000 to an arts program. I don't know the particulars of that situation,"

So what? An arts program got money for many years, and you're not only not grateful for it, you're sulking because they aren't going to go on doing it?

Giving people money is not an injury, and it doesn't require compensation.

"but historically business has withheld such contributions as a way of controlling what work the artists produce."

A delusional definition of control.

I don't give money to that arts program, and I'm not controlling what work the artists produce.

Applying Free Market to Faith
An article that may appeal to some on townhall can be googled at "business model saving souls"---it is on chicagotribune.com today 11-24. A business model is being applied to church members, rating their relationship with Christ on a quantifiable scale. This is being done by mega-churches with membership in the tens of thousands. The point is to find out if church-goers are getting what they came for, in the hope of retaining them and increasing their number. Free market and Christianity, two favorite townhall topics, thus come together.


To Mischief
Sure you are. If the program funds an artist who paints and exhibits work you think is nasty, and you run the local plumbing company that generally donates $50K to the arts program but now you are offended by the nasty picture so you withhold the money, then you are using your money as an instrument of control.

This puts art in the position of "satisfy the money community or go hungry". And that's not a new story---back in the day when artists worked under the patronage of a local aristocrat, that artist had better not offend his patron.

Then modern times brought us a more democratic arrangement---for a while. But if we are now to leave impartial government subsidy for private philanthropy, then we're back where we started.

We have seen a concrete example of this with public television, which marries media issues with art issues. When the conservatives took over, they found PBS too liberal. The Bush government almost immediately replaced the PBS boss and board of directors with loyal Bushies. Bill Moyers was tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. Saturday evenings most of the BBC comedies were replaced with religious shows. Masterpiece Theater became a rare treat. The PBS gift catalog filled up with Christian merchandise. "He who pays the piper calls the tune".

To Lilly
Wow, what an "entitlement" mentality. Why is ANY artist ENTITLED to ANY subsidy?

"...If the program funds an artist who paints and exhibits work you think is nasty, and you run the local plumbing company that generally donates $50K to the arts program but now you are offended by the nasty picture so you withhold the money, then you are using your money as an instrument of control...."

Of course, and there is nothing wrong with doing that!

If an artist insists upon continually making racist sculpures that glorify the Lynching of Blacks, why should the "Local Plumbing Company" continue to fund that artist? (This is just an example)

If artists want to produce controversial art (remember, what they create is a personal choice), then they should find very rich and very thick-skinned liberal sponsors, because most people won't want to pay for it!

Business is what built this nation
I still can't figure out why so many people turn to socialism and the government to generate efficiency, solve problems, raise the standard of living, etc. They have never done any of that. It is the business man (read: entrepreneur) that does all of this and more. When clever and courageous individuals (which liberals view as greedy or selfish) see a need or an inefficiency, they set out to make that part of the world a better place by solving those problems with a business solution. If they generate a solution or create greater efficiency, that is represented by a profit in the form of money in the bank; otherwise it is a failure and the business does not succeed. But the profit does not stop with the entrepreneur--the consumer also receives a profit. The consumer gets a product or service at a greater convenience or lower cost than what he can provide himself.

The deeper lesson is that if you go around to wealthy or prominent members of the community to solicit financial assistance for a worthy cause, odds are that concerned business leaders will make up the lion's share of the benefactors. Do you wanna make a bet? I am all-in every single hand. The truth is that if we could get the same caliber of people into office that actually run this nation's economy, we would turn everything around in less than a decade. Sadly this will never be the case because as has been said by a popular commentator: "I won't take that big of a pay cut." And when they do run, they are flatly rejected because the election process is too akin to voting for high school superlatives--a popularity contest rather than a vote on principles.

Next time you hear people complaining about business interfering in government issues or the election process, correct them. The only problem on their part could be not being involved enough.

debate this, lily
http://home.comcast.net/~cls.home/alceu.garcia.htm.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~cls.home/socialist.liberal.htm
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.