South Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is being ridiculed for a recent speech where he appears to compare poor people to stray cats and connect having “ample food supply” to increasing welfare demand.
Here is the key quote:
“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”
Perhaps his grandma should have also told him not to quote her on this one.
Almost sixty percent of kids in South Carolina participate in free or reduced cost lunches. Bauer insists that those free lunches appear to be driving down test scores:
“I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina,” adding, “You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I’ll show you the worst test scores, folks. It’s there, period.” … “You go to a school where there’s an active participation of parents, and guess what? They have the highest test scores. So what do you do? You say, ‘Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don’t attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits.’”
I just hope that he does not read this blog and see the availability of haggis in a can for lunchroom cafeterias, here.
By the way, have you noticed that the number of truly moronic statements goes up dramatically with the free availability of microphones. I can show you a bar graph where politicians near free mics have the worst ideas in any state.
212 thoughts on “S.C. Lt. Governor Bauer Compares Poor People to Stray Cats”
I’d really like to hear more of Mike Appleton’s views on this topic.
Byron: “If the legal system confers rights to a corporation, which is nothing more than the manifestation of an individual mind,”
Counter-factual premise; corporations are more than the manifestation of an individual mind.
Byron: “doesn’t it ultimately follow that government can restrict individuals in their pursuit of happiness?”
Pursuit of happiness is Lockean shorthand for property and the use thereof. You have read the 5th amendment; haven’t you? You are aware of things like zoning laws, property torts, etc.?
Byron: “The rights of an individual are implicit in the creation of a corporation.”
No, the statutes allowing for the creation of a corporation imply the existence of rights incidental to the running of the corporation. The corporation and the individual have NOTHING to do with each other unless you’re talking about piercing the veil.
Byron: “An individual’s rights presuppose a corporation. A corporation does not exist except at the pleasure of an individual(s).”
No. A corporation exists as a creature of statute. Individuals may will a corporation into existence by becoming ‘incorporators’ who file all the right paperwork to create said corporation, but corporation owes its existences necessarily to the body of law ALLOWING FOR AND RECOGNIZING ITS EXISTENCE. A partnership may come into existence at the pleasure of two individuals acting in concert for the purpose of making a profit, i.e. without a statute, but not a corporation.
Byron: “To deny rights to a corporation denies rights to an individual.”
To make that argument is to ignore the very purpose of a corporation; mixing the individual with the creature of statute shows an intention to use the corporation as an alter ego and therefore gives the shareholders of said corporation no right to limited liability.
Byron: “So this ruling, in my mind, goes far beyond free speech but to the very heart of the issue of individual liberty.”
Byron, you’re all sideways man. Get a grip. You’re whining like a liberal who thinks the constitution is all about sunshine and lollipops; and I mean that in a nice cautionary way. Simply because a corporation is the basic tool for your free market system, it doesn’t follow that corporations have the same rights as you.
Have a drink of coffee, read the second paragraph of the DOI, throw on the Rolling Stones “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” — you’ll eventually see the light.
“as it was true at our founding, so it is true today. A monopoly can only exist by government fiat.”
Political monopolies do not easily tolerate economic ones unless they control them.
CEJ: “Do you hold any hope it can be fixed?”
Yes; but this would require the growth of a spine for some liberals and a conscience alligned with integrity on the part of certain conservatives.
Congress can override SCOTUS on this issue by passing legislation overturning the Court order and re-establishing the law as it existed prior.
They would have to clearly set forth their legislative intent paving the way to curtail the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS on this matter. Yes, Congress has the power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS in many cases. Here, they would not only have to explain why SCOTUS has no say in this matter, e.g. as I tried explaining above, but also in such a finely tuned manner as to preclude the argument that Congress is attempting to limit the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS for an ENTIRE CLASS of litigation — something congress can’t do.
as it was true at our founding, so it is true today. A monopoly can only exist by government fiat.
“Thus, corporations have only those rights conferred upon them by the legal system to which it owes its existence.”
If the legal system confers rights to a corporation, which is nothing more than the manifestation of an individual mind, doesn’t it ultimately follow that government can restrict individuals in their pursuit of happiness? The rights of an individual are implicit in the creation of a corporation. An individual’s rights presuppose a corporation. A corporation does not exist except at the pleasure of an individual(s).
To deny rights to a corporation denies rights to an individual. So this ruling, in my mind, goes far beyond free speech but to the very heart of the issue of individual liberty.
Thank-you for all your work in helping to explain why the SCOTUS was so very, very wrong! I feel so depressed just thinking of all the implications of this decision.
Do you hold any hope it can be fixed?
Thank-you too for the BIL update.
Best wishes on the move; and please hurry back we are all missing your greenness!
Thanks Bob, Esq. I was wondering if he had served notice of sabbatical or not.
Buddha wrote me an email almost two weeks ago explaining he would be in the process of moving and would be very busy in the weeks to come.
Byron: “I have a small corporation, an S-Corp incorporated in the state of XX (for real I just don’t want to give the state). I can now give money to the candidates of my choice and as much as I want through advertising.”
Simply because you benefit from the flow through taxation of an S Corp, you are still not your corporation. Treating your S-Corp as an ‘alter-ego’ would be grounds for piercing the veil.
Byron: “How is that a bad thing? As an individual I have more choices now.”
Byron: “Isn’t that a good thing? Although I wont because I don’t have additional money to piss away on political advertisements. There are individuals on the other side of the “corporate veil”.
Byron, this isn’t the story of Pinocchio; your corporation is a lifeless creature of statute having nothing to do with you, excepting flow through taxation implications, so long as it is kept in proper form and run in proper order.
Byron: “A large corporation C type has individual share holders. Don’t you think they are going to have some say in political advertising? Aren’t they individuals?”
The shareholders are individuals with rights of their own; as shareholders and as individuals. The corporation they own shares in is a distinct entity; it is not the sum of the individuals owning and operating it. In fact, it is by definition NOT those owning and operating it because if it were, there would be NO limited liability.
The first amendment DOES NOT CONFER A RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, it restricts the Fed from infringing upon the right retained by mankind upon entering into the social compact. Thus, corporations have only those rights conferred upon them by the legal system to which it owes its existence. It does not obtain the same rights as shareholders, officers and directors by osmosis or any other manner.
Byron: “Why should unions be able to give large sums of money to advertising and not corporations? What is the difference? This was a correct decision and enlarges/enhances individual freedom.
Hamilton is a little nutty in my opinion, at least at this point in my knowledge of his writings.”
Ignoring McColluch for a moment, Hamilton was incredibly conservative when it came to the constitution; because Conservatives don’t read things into the constitution that aren’t there; no matter how much they may want it.
Any word on Buddha by the way?
“Monopolies of commerce” is a term used by Jefferson to include both government granted monopolies and private domination of a particular industry or market segment. Here’s his comments to A. Donald in 1788:
“By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate [* * *] freedom of commerce against monopolies.”
He was surely no friend of monopolies such as the Farmers General monopoly in France, whose claim on government protection was loaning the king money at reduced rates of interest in exchange for control of the tobacco market. In Jefferson’s time, most every monopoly was a crown granted corporation given control over a particular market or area of geography. Adam Smith’s attack on mercantilism had not yet taken hold and the European powers were still monarchies wedded to corporate-chartered monopolies set up to enforce the political economy that fed these kings their great wealth.
In 1788 Jefferson wrote Madison that “. . .it is better to abolish monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any.”
a monopoly in commerce is different from a corporation. Madison, I think, was addressing a government monopoly in say the post office or toll roads. The language seems pretty explicit to me. He does not appear to be speaking of private corporations.
Any more thoughts on this?
“Monopolies have been granted in other Countries, and by some of the States in this, on another principle, that of supporting some useful undertaking untill experience and success should render the monopoly unnecessary, & lead to a salutary competition. This was the policy of the monopoly granted in Virga to Col. Jno Hoomes to establish a passenger-stage from ____ to ____ But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all, the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent, and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.”
Madison and Jefferson sought to include an 11th provision in the Bill of Rights to prohibit “monopolies in commerce.” This was aimed right at the British East India Company, the first and largest multi-national corporation. It was thought unnecessary because state laws against corporate monopolies already existed. In large measure the American Revolution was a revolt against the political system of mercantilism powered by this conglomerate. Jefferson wrote:
“With respect to the new Government, nine or ten States will probably have accepted by the end of this month. The others may oppose it. Virginia, I think, will be of this number. Besides other objections of less moment, she [Virginia] will insist on annexing a bill of rights to the new Constitution, i.e. a bill wherein the Government shall declare that, 1. Religion shall be free; 2. Printing presses free; 3. Trials by jury preserved in all cases; 4. No monopolies in commerce; 5. No standing army.
Upon receiving this bill of rights, she will probably depart from her other objections; and this bill is so much to the interest of all the States, that I presume they will offer it, and thus our Constitution be amended, and our Union closed by the end of the present year.”
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to M. Dumas,1788)
after these comments i will never vote to re-elect this inconsiderate person
Byron you left out
or in street lang
U B Da Man
Ya heard?, if u aint, u betta axe sum body be atch
I have read Madison’s thoughts on corporations and he seems to be speaking of Towns and religious corps. I also found out that Jefferson did not really bad mouth banks, he was speaking of debt by government. In addition I am of the understanding that the words “legal fiction” were coined in the 30’s.
What is all of this?
“So I am all who you think I am and we will leave it at that.”
bdaman I don’t think that proves anything. People own pda devices.
well then I guess one could never be satisfied with any explanation.
So I am all who you think I am and we will leave it at that.
I have a small corporation, an S-Corp incorporated in the state of XX (for real I just don’t want to give the state). I can now give money to the candidates of my choice and as much as I want through advertising. How is that a bad thing? As an individual I have more choices now. Isn’t that a good thing? Although I wont because I don’t have additional money to piss away on political advertisements. There are individuals on the other side of the “corporate veil”.
A large corporation C type has individual share holders. Don’t you think they are going to have some say in political advertising? Aren’t they individuals?
Why should unions be able to give large sums of money to advertising and not corporations? What is the difference? This was a correct decision and enlarges/enhances individual freedom.
Hamilton is a little nutty in my opinion, at least at this point in my knowledge of his writings.
Comments are closed.