The Non-Interventionist Middle East Plan?

We got into several interesting discussions over hearMP Iraq Mission Creep

"Okay, I'll bite, What do you non-interventionists want to do?
Should we have let:

• Saddam invade our ally Kuwait? (and maybe Saudi Arabia)
• Maintained the No Fly Zones for 60 years? (kind of the like in Korea)
• Let the Taliban continue to allow terrorist training camps?
• Let ISIL continue to take land, secure funding, grow, etc?

It would be interesting to see what the Middle East would have looked like if the Ottoman Empire had not entered WWI on the wrong side. Unfortunately they did and the rest is history.  BBC Middle East History" G2A

"In Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq? I would not have invaded Iraq in the first place, but that's water under the bridge now. Afghanistan may be hopeless--progress is going to be stymied in a country with such relatively small economic potential. Syria is also a hard case. Assad should go, but he is being backed by Russia, so there is little US pressure that would work. I think containing Daesh is the top priority now, and the US military has a limited role it can or should play there (intelligence, possibly air support)." RB

Now the Liberals can try to blame past US Foreign Policy and Interventions for many things, however the reality is that it does not matter.  It is in the past and can not be changed.  My summary of RB's position is that US should revert back to President Obama's ~2011 strategy regarding the Middle East.

• Pull all US ground troops out Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East.
• Just provide intelligence, air support and political support. 
• In essence let the countries resolve their own issues through civil war.

Now what we know of the recent past is that ISIL, Al Qeada,  Al Shabaab, and all the other power hungry violent Sharia law supporting fundamentalists thrive in power vacuums.  And the reality is that even Obama needed to change his plan when it failed and ISIS grew in power, wealth, land, reach, etc.

So I will ask again, what do you non-interventionists want to do?

• Pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban enslave the country again?
• Pull out of Iraq / Syria and let ISIS start growing again?
• Other?

Punishment, Gift or Reward

Matt and my comments took an interesting twist on the MP GOP Doomed article.  It is a very interesting look into what social programs are from different perspectives.


Matt seems to believe that the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they want to "punish" the recipients.  Kind of like when a Parent sends a Child to bed without supper...


Whereas I see the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they are aware that it is  a "huge gift / investment" from the other tax payers in the country.  And that it is only fair to expect the recipients to do everything they can to improve themselves, improve their local community and their personnel situation so they can get off those support systems and help pay for them.


My point is that poverty is the natural consequence of keeping a single parent household, squandering the huge K-12 investment our society made in the recipient, having more children than you can afford, having children too young, etc.  Therefore any public assistance one receives is a blessing that one is not entitled to.  Therefore one should be very thankful and work their butt off to use as little of it as they can, not complain that they are entitled to more.  Thoughts?

"Please do tell. Name a societal level economic and or social ill eliminated by charity. Charity is wonderful for its purpose, targeted relief for specific problems. It can never be the panacea that conservatives wish it to be, due to the fact that too many competing interests are after the same dollar. Societal level problems require societal level solutions, not well intended half measures from a nonprofit community unequipped to address that level of need." Matt

"I am unsure. I may agree with Medicaid, however I don't think charity could have done any worse than the government intervention... Forbes War on Poverty" G2A

"There's a reason for the term "poorhouse." There's also a reason we collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to deal with care for the aged, we couldn't afford not to. You live in a world which has never seen the way things used to be, a world that is, on average, utterly ignorant of its own history. It's reflected in nearly all aspects of life and only grows more obvious with each passing year. Would that folks pause to speak with even one person who actually experienced the past before the sweeping victories of the New Deal and Great Society, perhaps minds might change, but as fewer and fewer remain (at least those who were in a position to understand the implications, sorry boomers) that opportunity will soon pass." Matt

"Choices. "collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to deal with care for the aged, we couldn't afford not to."

It is interesting comparing families here to families in Asia. Over there it is more likely to have grand parents, parents and children living together. Whereas here we seem to have outsourced child raising of our young and elder care to the government in many cases. Maybe it is our self centered independent American way...

Maybe this is part of why there are so many single parent households out there. I mean why would anyone choose to deal with their Parents or a Spouse, and their expectations of us, when Uncle Sam is out there handing out checks without judgment, advice or expectations? Why would we choose to help care for Mom or Dad in their old age when there are government funded nursing homes available?

I agree whole heartedly that we collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to resolve many personal and family issues. Unfortunately it came with a big price tag for our society and some terrible consequences for our most vulnerable children. On the upside is very convenient and let's us delegate some of those family responsibilities elsewhere..." G2A

"Always a punishment. It's really the only card conservatism knows how to play isn't it. Couldn't afford to save for retirement? Starve, or bankrupt your children. Can afford health insurance? Die, or bankrupt your entire lineage. Want to give your kids an education? Better have the funds or else.  

The problem with your entire mindset was never that it didn't, or could still today, work for SOME people. It's that it would be disastrous for MOST people.  

If you'd like an example, let me suggest ME. My mother's father died 6 months after I was born. She and my father were 20 something's, married young with my seven year old sister already around. They had just begun to get their heads above water, with my mom having just landed the job she'd hold until last year, and my Dad getting through tech school. My grandmother was a lovely lady, but being rendered deaf at a young age by scarlet fever had never gotten advanced education, being considered too disabled by the general consensus of the times. She was completely dependent upon my grandfather, unable even to drive. As she aged her diabetes consumed ever more of her budget. Did I mention my mother's sibling were still in high school at the time?  

Under your worldview, responsibility for my grandmother and her minor children should have been assumed by my parents, which would have cost them two homes, as well as any hope to save for their own future. It would have cost my aunt and uncle the college degrees they both earned later and the success they enabled. It would have cost my sister and I ours as well, and likely cost my younger brother his chance to be born.  

What prevented all of this, not charity, we come from poor families in a poor town, in a poor county, in a backwater state. There was no one else not to busy trying to survive themselves, to assist us. Social security, Medicaid, and later Medicare SAVED my mother's family, and by extension saved me the success I have enjoyed in my life. Spare me the condescension about caring for my elders, we have, by enabling programs to ensure they have what they need even if we can't provide it." Matt

"You call not offering social support systems a "punishment", where as I see having social support systems as a "huge gift / investment" that the recipients should be incredibly thankful for. In fact they should be so thankful that they should do everything they can to improve themselves, improve their local community and their personal situation so they can get off those support systems and help pay for them.

Do you in someway believe that society owed your family the help you received?
What do you think your family did to earn the tax dollars from the pockets of your neighbors?
If you in no way earned that "gift / investment" from the other tax payers, how could putting conditions on your receipt of it be considered a punishment?

As I have said before, I am happy to see tax dollars used to help people improve. (ie learn to fish) However I am not happy to see tax dollars used to help healthy capable citizens stay sitting in the US Social Support hammock. (ie buying fish)

So it sounds like your family made good with "huge gift / investment" that the other tax payers in the country gave you from their wallet. That is excellent news, now why are you resistant to demanding that from the other recipients across the country?" G2A

Peace and Love. Not.

Those pro-peace anti-hate anti-Trump folks sure have a strange way of demonstrating their deep held beliefs...  Thoughts?


CNN Violence at Anti-Trump Rally

GOP is DOOMED... Or not...

A gift from Laurie...

This tax topic bores me so I will throw in a link to something more interesting:

“Complete and total destruction of the Republican Party”: Former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett on why he backs Trump

I can't say that I see the GOP returning to sanity any time soon.

And some thoughts I left at MP Demographic Shifts Spell Doom for GOP

"The reality is that people who have earned money through hard work and self discipline will be more likely to vote Republican, since they will value their personal wealth and want lower taxes so they can spend it or give it away as they choose. And the folks who want the government to arbitrate / control the distribution of wealth in America with no regard to effort / sacrifice will continue to vote for Democrats.

On the upside, as more non-white individuals become more financially successful... They will shift towards the GOP / Capitalism party and away from the DFL / Social Democracy party. Thank heaven for the pendulum." G2A

"If you are standing in line at a movie theater that has 500 seats. 50 people walk past you and budge in line in front of you, thereby pushing you to the point in line that you are not able to see the movie. The theater management sees what happens , refuses to sell tickets to the budgers and let's you buy tickets. Is this a "hard line stance" in your view or is it "fair"? 

If you want to let in more legal immigrants who are willing to apply, stand in line, go through back ground checks, etc... Sounds great !!! I'm all for legal immigration, it can help keep wages globally competitive. 

If you want to give citizenship to "budgers" who bypassed the legal process, avoided back ground checks and jumped in front of law abiding immigrants... Then I disagree. I think they should go to the back of the line... 

By the way, on a related note apparently ~400,000 people illegally entered the country and ~400,000 left... Therefore net illegal immigration was about ZERO. Now this is good news until you think that many of ~400,000 people entered the country with NO Background check... It is kind of amazing that we have not had more terrorist incidence since our border is apparently pretty easy to violate." G2A

"As I said, I don't who will vote for who... However I think race should have little to do with it" G2A.

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You

A common theme in these 2 pieces and their related comments, are that some Liberals seem to want to hold those who fail in school and "life" blameless, while they want to guilt those who succeed in school and "life" for making good financial decisions.  Thoughts?


MP MN Vote with their Feet

"Hi Guys, I agree that you made a very rational decision... I am pretty sure everyone here would make a financially sound decision to move to a low tax state when they can work it into their life. My parents changed their residence to SD 10 years ago or so, and they spend the Winters near Miami. (for the concerned folks here, as farmers / landlords they still pay a boat load of MN property taxes)

I am curious who would willingly pay 10+% to the government and pay a state estate taxes when they really don't need to. I mean who would say "I want to pay $10,000+ per year in taxes rather than save it for my children or help them with their bills...

I know it is hard for some Liberals to understand, however people with good money management skills (aka rich), take many things into account before making big decisions. And $10,000+ / year in unnecessary expenses will make the list.

After paying 100's of thousands of dollars in MN taxes during my working career, I will have no problem changing my state of residence when it works for my family..." G2A

"It is unfortunate that you think so poorly of the folks in other states who see the world differently than you do. And for people with a million dollar net worth at the time of their retirement and much of it taxable, we are not talking "a few dollars"... We are talking 10s of thousands of dollars. I think I will give it to charity or my children rather than the bureaucrats.   State by State Guide" G2A

MP Things are Getting Better

"Like all organizations of people, our country will only maximize the "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" promise if everyone is a productive and responsible citizen. Meaning that everyone helps to row the boat.

Unfortunately though our society provides welfare for many and free K-12 education for all. Many of our young citizens are failing to become academically proficient and seriously employable. In a large part because of their parental role models and because the public education system rewards tenure over results.

Ironically as I have said before... The 10% will make money whether the American workers succeed or not. They and our consumers just invest in the countries and companies where the government and citizens support excellence, effectiveness and efficiency. And the countries and citizens who don't will continue to struggle." G2A

"I have no desire to cut kindergarten. My point is that society and tax payers are investing between $130,000 to $260,000 into each and every child in America. (more in some cases) Much of which goes into the pockets of Teachers and Administrators. Unfortunately millions of students each year can not achieve basic academic proficiency.

And after the Parents, Teachers and Students have failed to make good use of this huge investment, the folks on the Left demand that we continue to send more money to these folks... I am curious about the rationale?

What does it mean to be a responsible citizen from your perspective? I like Kennedy's view.

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy" G2A

Paulsen vs Bonoff

Well I am bummed out now... I actually voted for DFL State Sen. Terri Bonoff, now it is likely I will choose to vote against her...  What a waste.  I would prefer her in the State Legislature fighting for increasing Teacher accountability.

Well I guess this is one race where I will need to do by homework before filling in the circle.  Thoughts?

MP Could 3rd Elect a Democrat
MP 3rd District Race

Clinton Support by Sanders Voters

I thought this was an interesting question and piece.  Thoughts?
CNN Will Sander's Voters Support Clinton?

MN Legislative Update

No time to post.  See below.  Thoughts?


MP MN Legislative Update
MPR MN Legislative Page
JDSUPRA Weekly Leg
Parent United Capitol

Government Helping to Improve Things

Well Eric is back covering the pro big government supporters.  MP Gov't Helping Things Get Better

"Continually the Left makes the case that the Right is trying shrink the government to somewhere we have not been before. Often comparing the GOP's dream government to some third world country. All the while neglecting to mention that the total government spend as a % of GDP has been growing pretty much non-stop since 1900. Federal_State_and_Local_Spending_In_20th_Century

Now I am not recommending that we go back to 8% of GDP, however I think 33+% is probably excessive. How about instead of giving government more of our hard earned dollars, we demand that they become more effective and efficient with what they already receive.

I also, thought this was amusing. "But, Hacker said, “the new idea that government is parasitic on a very small creative elite and the rest of society is mooching off of that elite is new to me and troubling.”" Because of course Ayn Rand was writing about that concept in 1943." G2A

Thoughts? 

Democratic Debate and Non-Answers

The Black MN comments seemed to move to a new topic, so I dragged them over here.

"There is a rhetorical tactic out there to the effect of why aren't you making a different argument from the one you are. It's a form of reverse straw man I suppose. You see it when people who talk about issue X, are criticized for not talking about issue why. It's a question that can be asked, I suppose, but it's one where the real answer is usually not very interesting, having to do with things like internal strategizing and allocation of resources. What is generally pretty clear is that while issue X may or may not be a valid issue, it's validity isn't dependent on the validity or lack thereof of issue Y. Indeed, the attempt to shift the discussion to issue why is sort of an implicit admission that the person who wants to deflect the discussion because of his weakness on issue X." --Hiram  

"As it happens I just saw an example of this on Morning Joe. Hillary was asked to release the text of her speeches to Wall Street which obviously she should and she immediately tried to shift the issue to Sanders refusal to provide complete income tax returns. Bernie should do that of course, but that was an implicit admission of her own position. This is particularly true since the argument bounces back in that she is trying to impose a standard that's totally justifiable and fair on Bernie that she is not willing to meet herself." --Hiram 

"An interesting point and line of reasoning, Hiram. I have noted it often in these and other discussions, particular with those of a more liberal persuasion. If one raises a good, logical and direct point, the liberal response is very often the non-sequitur or the tu quoque, neither of which addresses the issue at hand. In this case, it is, one assumes since we would call BLM the "liberal" side of this debate, that it is conservatives raising the ancillary question of black-on-black violence as the REASON for the police presence and the tiny few but unfortunate cases of blacks (a soupcon of them innocent) being shot by police.  

In this case, though, I think the logical position is that there must be some balance to the argument made by the BLM people. The are outraged and driven to massive demonstrations by something like .06% of the violence against black people, while doing absolutely nothing about the rest, which is increasing as a result of their actions. It seems the ultimate in irresponsibility. " Jerry 

"about Hillary's speeches- has any other candidate in any other election cycle been asked to release transcripts of speeches or, as I believe, this is a new expectation just for Hillary. 

otoh, releasing several years of tax returns has been a standard expectation for many years. 

I agree with Hillary, why should she be held to a new standard? I bet there would be nothing too radical or different from her public positions on issues in those speeches." Laurie

"Laurie, I'll agree with you except to note that "new standards" is nothing new for Democrats running for office. The object is to make the opponent look bad for doing, or not doing, something that doesn't sound unreasonable but that is difficult for them at least politically, and easy for you. It's unfair, in some sense.

In this case, though, Hillary is making her own mess. First, she takes $250,000 from Verizon for a speech, then joins the strikers and denounces them. There's some hypocrisy somewhere and of course Bernie points it out. " Jerry

 

Black Minnesotans Unite

MP Black Minnesotans  We will see if my comment gets through the moderator...

"The common theme I hear from BLM and other organizations is that they just want to be treated like everyone else... That people should treat them as people, not Black people. Racism should end.

And yet this whole effort seems to be aimed at uniting people based on their race and promoting special benefits that will be determined based on race.

I also sense some puzzlement that foreign born Blacks are far more likely to associate with Whites and other foreign born Blacks. Which is odd to me if skin color / race is not supposed to matter. Personally I am just hoping that the Blacks who migrated here keep their perspective and attitude that America is the land of opportunity instead of shifting towards a victim mentality.

I support Morgan Freeman's view.  Ending Racism by Morgan Freeman" G2A

What frustrates and/or concerns me the most is that young Black immigrants like my recent energetic Ethiopian cab driver may be sucked into the Victim Mentality that many of our local Blacks suffer from. (By the way, this VM link is to a different site than usual)  Enjoy !!!

Coed Bath and Shower Rooms

Joel, Jerry and I have been having a long drawn out discussion about sexuality, body parts and bathrooms.  This triggered an interesting question.

If the LGBT community has figured out that anyone should be able to use any bathroom or shower room based on their personal self identification, not on their sexual preference and/or body parts.  The logic being that it really doesn't matter since we all are mature open minded people...  Then should our society just drop this whole silly men's and women's thing?

I remember a while back that Laurie said she would have no problem being naked in a shower room with a Lesbian. (ie woman sexually attracted to other women)  So does that mean that we should be able to go coed and have heterosexual men in that same room? (ie man sexually attracted to women)

Why or why not?  What is your rationale?  How does this apply or not apply to the on going bathroom law debate?

For a visual...  Here is an image of the coed shower scene from Starship Troopers...

A discussion of the scene at Quora
More discussion on Reddit

The Challenge of Moderation

Joel asked an interesting question:

"I wonder why such a flat out fabrication of someone else's position would be allowed to stand and not be deleted by our moderator?

I think this somewhat impolite and yet within the rules comment by Jerry triggered the question:

"Joel, you are free to eat anything you like but not to tell me what I will eat. And if you think that makes you healthier, great. But if you tell me you're doing it to save the planet from CO2 and/or methane, I'm going to laugh at you. See, that's the thing. We have all these folks running around telling us where we should get our energy, or that we shouldn't be getting our energy, and how much we should pay for it, just to do something for which they don't have a lick of conclusive evidence for the necessity."

I guess my view is that Joel is free to correct Jerry in the next comment as he did.

"And you'll find that nowhere and at no time in my life have I ever suggested that the government mandate "such a radical totalitarian policy", so I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth." Joel

Lord know Sean has straightened me out more than once...  So please play nice, argue lively and attack the topic...  Not each other.


G2A Moderation Rules

• G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
• G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
• G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
• G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
• G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
• G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)

Food Choices and Carbon

Joel, Jerry and I got into a lively debate HERE. Joel mentioned the following and Jerry / I said in essence that we are not giving up our steaks. However I did say I would make it a topic for further discussion.

"The problem actually is that nobody talks about one of the biggest drivers of greenhouses gases...our consumption of animal protein.

It takes up inordinate amounts of land and clean water, and returns pollution, excess methane, and bad human health."

Personally I think this a population growth issue more than a food choice issue.  Of course the question is how do we stop India and Africa from growing like a colony of bunny rabbits?


Food Facts : Meat vs Soy and Others
PNAS Report
Science Daily
The Atlantic

MN Budget Battle

Thoughts on what should done with that extra $900,000,000 we have paid from our wallets and placed in the State coffers?


Star Trib GOP Takes First Steps
MPR Teachers Want More Money
KAAL What to Do With the Money
MN Budget Bites
Red Lake News
Prairie Busn News

MN Black Civil Rights Groups Collaborate

BMTN Groups Lay Out Ideas
MP MN Civil Rights Groups
Star Trib Unified Push


My MP Comments:

"There seemed to be a lot of "send money our way" and very little "how can we improve our society". It seems every time I hear from NAACP, BLM, etc it is always about we are not treated fairly, therefore we are rarely successful. And rarely about this is how our community is going to change in order for it to thrive. Is the media just not covering their self improvement efforts? 

I don't think they are ignoring the needs of others, but it does seem they could have a lot more political clout if they added members from the other groups. But maybe that is the role of the DFL party? And they could have better paying jobs if they supported deporting the illegal workers. :-) 

Finally, I am very curious how many of those ex-felons would vote? And not sure why they should be able to vote while on probation / parole."

On a barely related note: MLK Speech

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. "

I heard this on the radio the other day and it seemed relevant.  I was wondering what MLK would think of the character of many Black people / families today? All the children in single parent homes, the large amount of violent crime, etc. And yes I understand there is history that contributed to the current state, however since character is a choice I do wonder how it fits into the equation.


Thoughts?


Teaching Values (source for my value statements)
Good Character

Dayton Bans Travel

BMTN Dayton Bans Travel
The Uptake Travel Ban
Gov NC Letter
Gov Site


Now I have no problem with Dayton having an opinion on what is occurring in another State, but saying that it violates the Constitutional Rights of LGBT folks in those States seems like a stretch since the courts have not weighed in on this discussion. I mean LGBT marriage barely was approved by SCOTUS and that is a transaction between civilians and a "non-religious" government.  When SCOTUS has to balance Religious vs LGBT freedoms, I think all bets will be off. Remember the Hobby Lobby ruling...

"This act of discrimination is discriminatory against many Mississippi residents, and violates their constitutional rights," Dayton said. "We cannot allow this injustice to go unanswered. When the rights of some Americans are threatened, it is the responsibility of all Americans to stand in opposition to those discriminatory acts."

Thoughts?

Minneapolis Police Body Cameras

How about thoughts regarding MP Police Body Cameras. Here are my comments from there.

"They say it does not increase accountability... I don't think I would want to be an officer who got a serious complaint and did not have it on... Imagine if the Jamar Clark officers had opted to leave it off...(if they had them)

They are worried that the officers report may be more accurate and complete if they review the video. How is this a bad thing? I would find someway to cut the video and attach it into the report. (ie shorter reports...)

What would they do if someone like Jamar asked the officer to turn it off before the incident? Under what instances can the Officers say no to a request to turn it off?

Since this is all new cost with no offsetting cost reduction, and much of the officers time is waiting / watching, running it all day would be expensive with no benefit...

Finally, the goal is not perfection. Perfection is expensive. If perfection is 10 steps forward, it sounds like this takes them about 7 steps forward. Much better than today." G2A

More from the MP Clark Ruling, the comments keep coming 

Policies That Encourage Not Offshoring Jobs

To preserve the hypocrisy discussion. I pulled this comment here.

"With respect to trade, I think our policy should be to encourage domestic production, and to take a hard look at policies and practices that become barriers to domestic production. But I would never tell a consumer what to buy on that basis. 

More specifically, I think our policy should be to encourage America to make better cars, but not to tell consumers they can't or shouldn't buy a car that's better. 

Our economy is far better served by encouraging manufacturers to build better cars, than it is by policies that delude consumers into thinking inferior cars are better than they are." Hiram 

"I think the real focus should be to address policies that make the off shoring of jobs attractive to business." Hiram

"I can't wait to see the "policy to encourage American Automakers to make better cars". While demanding they pay higher wages, higher taxes, higher regulatory oversight costs, that they keep jobs in America, etc, etc, etc. 

I think the car companies are highly motivated to improve their product quality and margins to pay for R&D, that is why they are manufacturing where their competitors do..." G2A

What policies do you all recommend? 

Policy, Choices and Hypocricy

I wrote the following comment to describe something that I see as hypocritical and self serving. Hiram then responded and I think that his comments are worth further discussion.

"Kind of like when a Liberal demands that corporations stop sending jobs overseas as they climb into their Subaru while talking on their Samsung phone." G2A 

"This form of argument is never a problem for me because I make a distinction between policy choices and the choices we make under policy choices once they have been made. For example, in a tax context, I may have a disagreement with the policy behind a tax deduction, but once the policy choice has been made, I have no problem at all in taking the deduction. 

With respect to trade, I think our policy should be to encourage domestic production, and to take a hard look at policies and practices that become barriers to domestic production. But I would never tell a consumer what to buy on that basis. 

More specifically, I think our policy should be to encourage America to make better cars, but not to tell consumers they can't or shouldn't buy a car that's better. 

Our economy is far better served by encouraging manufacturers to build better cars, than it is by policies that delude consumers into thinking inferior cars are better than they are. 

If that's hypocrisy, I have no problem at all in living with it."

 So what do you think:

1. Is a Conservative who loudly promotes low taxes and low government benefits a hypocrite if they take money from a government program?
2. Is a Liberal who loudly condemns companies for off shoring jobs to cut costs or improve quality a hypocrite if they buy a very low domestic content vehicle? (ie 50 or less on KOGOD)

Thoughts?

Ps. I can't wait to see the "policy to encourage American Automakers to make better cars". While demanding they pay higher wages, higher taxes, higher regulatory oversight costs, that they keep jobs in America, etc, etc, etc. I think they are highly motivated to improve their product quality and margins to pay for R&D, that is why they are manufacturing where their competitors do...