ExiledInIllinois Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 I can think of one. Abe Lincoln. Maybe to a lesser degree, TR. What is it going to take in this era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 I can think of one. Abe Lincoln. Maybe to a lesser degree, TR. What is it going to take in this era? Lincoln? In the pocket of the abolitionists...how were they not special interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Exiled, this is a rather silly question, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Lincoln? In the pocket of the abolitionists...how were they not special interest? The abolitionists spent plenty of time villifying Abe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 24, 2008 Author Share Posted May 24, 2008 Lincoln? In the pocket of the abolitionists...how were they not special interest? I guess I meant to say big ECONOMIC special interest... No denying that was the South's bread and butter. No? You made a good point... I guess everything has a special interest angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 24, 2008 Author Share Posted May 24, 2008 Exiled, this is a rather silly question, imo. It is silly... I am a silly guy! But, really... The system today is tweaked to perfection... Is there any way to go "against the grain?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 First, define "Special Interest" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 25, 2008 Author Share Posted May 25, 2008 First, define "Special Interest" I think DC did... Anything with an interest I guess! You can probably define it as an interest where a few (vs. the many) get a said benefit over those many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 William Henry Harrison? He served only a month after getting sick during the inauguration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 The system today is tweaked to perfection... Is there any way to go "against the grain?" To be president now? No. In the future? Hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Didn't McCain recently vote against the Farm Subsidy Bill? If that isn't going against a special interest, I don't know what is. But he isn't the President yet either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 I think DC did... Anything with an interest I guess! You can probably define it as an interest where a few (vs. the many) get a said benefit over those many. Now define "A Prez That Went Against Special Interest". Does he have to do it once, twice, three times, etc? The problem with defining it the way you did is that most things could be considered "special interests" or not. For example, the proponents of the farm bill would argue that being able to feed a family on only 15% of their total budget is an amazing accomplishment, and proves the farm bill is a success. If we reverse the farm bill, people would be spending much more on food, and thus it would be bad for everyone. I, on the other hand, would argue that increased food prices would cause sugar and other unhealthy foods to not be artificially cheap, leading to an increase in health in the country, but a side effect would be that food costs more. Overall, I would argue that this is good for the country. Which is correct? Both sides have legitimate affects on the majority, making it hard to determine who is right, but yet farmers are considered "special interests". Under your definition, they wouldn't be, since they are arguing that they are good for the majority. In addition, how big of a "majority" do you need? Take, for example, Global Warming. According to a recent Pew poll, 47% of Americans believe that Global Warming is caused by humans. Both sides are arguing which side would be better for everyone. The Global Warming advocates are considered "special interests", but who is right? Here's a better definition of special interest, from u-s-history.com: A body of persons, corporation or industry that by reason of its alleged importance to the public good, seeks or receives benefits or privileged treatment, especially through legislation. When viewed through this microscope, what becomes clear is that the question between Republicans and Democrats is not whether they support the "special interests" (which is a term they love to throw around), but which ones that they support and believe should be elevated due to the importance to the public good (or whichever pays them more, either way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Just before WWII, and before he was President, Harry Truman cleaned up a lot of the shenanigans going on in the defense dept. and saved the country literally millions of dollars from cronyism and kickbacks. Where is our Harry Truman today? Harry Truman, as President, also threatened to draft all of the striking railroad workers if they didn't reach a settlement with management by a certain time. Just before he was going to officially announce the beginning of their being drafted he got word that a deal had been reached. When I say just before I mean Just Before, literally minutes before he was going to make the speech. This made him extremely unpopular with the unions and cost him a lot of votes but he did it because the RR strike was crippling the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 Just before WWII, and before he was President, Harry Truman cleaned up a lot of the shenanigans going on in the defense dept. and saved the country literally millions of dollars from cronyism and kickbacks. Where is our Harry Truman today? Harry Truman, as President, also threatened to draft all of the striking railroad workers if they didn't reach a settlement with management by a certain time. Just before he was going to officially announce the beginning of their being drafted he got word that a deal had been reached. When I say just before I mean Just Before, literally minutes before he was going to make the speech. This made him extremely unpopular with the unions and cost him a lot of votes but he did it because the RR strike was crippling the economy. Don't get me started... My family worked on the railroad... During the 1930's FDR cut my grandfather's wage by half! He was making 36 bucks a week and that was cut to 18. Do you want your pay cut in half? Funny thing is, as much as he hated FDR and called him a crippled bastard... He still voted for FDR and Truman and stayed died in the wool New Dealer/Dem. Early on he was even paid in 10 dollar gold coins which the gov't scared people into exchanging... My grandfather was bitter to the day he died about that... What does a 1936 gold piece go for today?... Let alone 35 years ago when my grandfather died almost without a penny... One thing is, as a railroad worker during the Depression... He helped pull the country up by subsidizing the New Deal. Maybe he (my grandfather) knew it was for the betterment of country? But, that is a bitter pill to swallow... On another note... How many concessions are people supposed to make? Their wages were cut in half during the 1930's and then after the war when the economy booms they are still expected to make concessions?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Don't get me started... My family worked on the railroad... During the 1930's FDR cut my grandfather's wage by half! He was making 36 bucks a week and that was cut to 18. Do you want your pay cut in half? Funny thing is, as much as he hated FDR and called him a crippled bastard... He still voted for FDR and Truman and stayed died in the wool New Dealer/Dem. Early on he was even paid in 10 dollar gold coins which the gov't scared people into exchanging... My grandfather was bitter to the day he died about that... What does a 1936 gold piece go for today... Let alone 35 years ago when my grandfather died almost without a penny... One thing is, as a railroad worker during the Depression... He helped pull the country up by subsidizing the New Deal. Maybe he (my grandfather) knew it was for the betterment of country? But, that is a bitter pill to swallow... On another note... How many concessions are people supposed to make? Their wages were cut in half during the 1930's and then after the war when the economy booms they are still expected to make concessions?? Same as it is today. The unions are bad, they are one of the main reasons for the failing economy and all of that garbage. Unions are in place to give the worker, the common man/woman a voice... and hopefully better security and a better life for their hard work. It's easier in this day in age to go after them and demand concession after concession until the workers have pretty much lost everything they have worked for. Yet, at the same time management is receiving huge buyouts for doing a bad job or to leave quietly. What should happen is what is done in the NFL to an extent. If a head coach does a poor job and his team is failing... that leader is dismissed. Same should be for the CEO's... if the company is failing they should go. They should go without their multi-million dollar buyouts. They should without blame being cast on the workers. Sorry, just got a little fired up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 Same as it is today. The unions are bad, they are one of the main reasons for the failing economy and all of that garbage. Unions are in place to give the worker, the common man/woman a voice... and hopefully better security and a better life for their hard work. It's easier in this day in age to go after them and demand concession after concession until the workers have pretty much lost everything they have worked for. Yet, at the same time management is receiving huge buyouts for doing a bad job or to leave quietly. What should happen is what is done in the NFL to an extent. If a head coach does a poor job and his team is failing... that leader is dismissed. Same should be for the CEO's... if the company is failing they should go. They should go without their multi-million dollar buyouts. They should without blame being cast on the workers. Sorry, just got a little fired up there. You are preaching to the choir. I am gov't worker (wage grade)... I am in the union here (you have a choice)... Also, we (all employees) signed that we can't strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Don't get me started... My family worked on the railroad... During the 1930's FDR cut my grandfather's wage by half! He was making 36 bucks a week and that was cut to 18. Do you want your pay cut in half? Funny thing is, as much as he hated FDR and called him a crippled bastard... He still voted for FDR and Truman and stayed died in the wool New Dealer/Dem. Early on he was even paid in 10 dollar gold coins which the gov't scared people into exchanging... My grandfather was bitter to the day he died about that... What does a 1936 gold piece go for today?... Let alone 35 years ago when my grandfather died almost without a penny... One thing is, as a railroad worker during the Depression... He helped pull the country up by subsidizing the New Deal. Maybe he (my grandfather) knew it was for the betterment of country? But, that is a bitter pill to swallow... On another note... How many concessions are people supposed to make? Their wages were cut in half during the 1930's and then after the war when the economy booms they are still expected to make concessions?? I'm not saying I agreed with Truman's move. I was just stating an example of a President standing up to special interests. Same as it is today. The unions are bad, they are one of the main reasons for the failing economy and all of that garbage. Unions are in place to give the worker, the common man/woman a voice... and hopefully better security and a better life for their hard work. It's easier in this day in age to go after them and demand concession after concession until the workers have pretty much lost everything they have worked for. Yet, at the same time management is receiving huge buyouts for doing a bad job or to leave quietly. What should happen is what is done in the NFL to an extent. If a head coach does a poor job and his team is failing... that leader is dismissed. Same should be for the CEO's... if the company is failing they should go. They should go without their multi-million dollar buyouts. They should without blame being cast on the workers. Sorry, just got a little fired up there. Unions are double edged swords, IMO. They don't work very well in industries that can move manufacturing elsewhere to avoid them. (i.e. auto workers) They do make good sense in industries that have jobs that have to stay here in America. (i.e. appliance service men) The UAW, IMO, has hurt the auto industry for over 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 I'm not saying I agreed with Truman's move. I was just stating an example of a President standing up to special interests. Unions are double edged swords, IMO. They don't work very well in industries that can move manufacturing elsewhere to avoid them. (i.e. auto workers) They do make good sense in industries that have jobs that have to stay here in America. (i.e. appliance service men) The UAW, IMO, has hurt the auto industry for over 30 years. The UAW has hurt the industry. I find that to be very funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 I can think of one. Abe Lincoln. Maybe to a lesser degree, TR. What is it going to take in this era? Didn't someone get sick at his graduation and then die? I'll take him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts