Public Expense Quotes
This may just have been a note to himself of a draft that he decided not to send. As with today, the people who would feel aggrieved by not being allowed to have Congressional Chaplains are much more passionate about the issue than the those who see Chaplains as unconstitutional. Thus Chaplains remain.
While this statement seems totally absurd to us today, at the time most politicians and judges believed it. Only the left wingers and the populists opposed the doctrine as well as most business owners who knew the truth but of course most preferred the have their own monopoly. One of the reasons the large American corporations did not want Jewish and Chinese immigrants is that those cultures supported highly competitive businesses and might give consumers a better deal or worse, their culture would argue for less monopoly and more competition. For more than half a century AT&T was given a monopoly over almost all telephone service in the United States. Finally the Federal Courts saw through the company propaganda, and ordered AT&T broken up. The “Baby Bells” have persuaded most state legislatures and regulatory bodies of this same argument, and almost every community of the United States has a monopoly on local wired local telephone service. The same is true about water and electricity and a great deal of American transportation. Every major company strives for as much of a monopolistic position the government will allow; some are overt like the electrical companies. Others are more subtle and use copyright and patents to be sure that there is no price or service competition. Fortunately, the high tech industry is to technologically competitive that prices have been have been going down constantly not like telephone and Internet connectivity, entertainment, education, and professional services.
Executed by the English for his part in the Easter Uprising. This was a creative idea to being technology to bear on small farms. America was exploring cooperatives and other devices of trying to allow people who were not rich and had little or not capital, to utilize the emerging technology that would be so important.
Millions of people were hungry. There was not enough wheat (they called it corn) to make up for the failed potatoes, and the aristocracy, the landlords, had a very high protective tariff to prevent American wheat from driving the prices down. The aristocrats would not budge on the “corn laws” so Victoria and her government appropriated funds to buy expensive English wheat to distribute to the needy. She also instituted some public employment so the unemployed would, as in the New Deal later, would work on public improvement. However, all administration went through the landlords who took large portions of the corn for the poor to pay themselves for the cost of distributing the corn to the needy. Then many landlords assigned the publicly paid workers to improvement projects on their own personal land. The Queen and Prince were furious and they began an effort that would repeal the Corn Laws and make England a free trading nation.
There are some in America who believe that progressive taxation where the rich pay at a higher rate was an invention of the New Deal and FDR. As this quotation shows, it was a well understood and debated concept before there was a United States.
McCain had been an independent-minded Republican, but when he first tried for the Republican Presidential nomination, the conservatives of the party trashed him for being too liberal. So when he ran again, he changed many of his positions to make himself more acceptable to the right wing, This was sufficiently effective to gain him the nomination, but as this quotation illustrates, many other Americans who had admired McCain for his independence, then became worried that if he were elected President, he would follow many of his new (flip flopped) positions. So many felt that way that he lost the election to Barack Obama. The shoe reference was to the fact that McCain and his wife were very wealthy and he wore expensive clothing.
The comparison of the costs of education and military spending is not just a modern phenomenon. In the middle of the 19th century, the same argument was being made.
