During the first Republican Presidential debate, which for the most part did not reveal a whole about any of the Candidates, two things struck me. Number one, Bachmann impressed (which I certainly did not expect) and her polls numbers went up as a result. More importantly though, I learned that T-Paw is an idiot. His assertion that the U.S. is a "special" nation seemed okay, except that by it he meant that the U.S. should adopt an arrogant view of the world to mirror that "specialness." But this assertion paled in comparison to his next statement. Ol' T-Paw then told the American people that "If Brazil can have 5 percent growth, if China can have 5 percent growth, then America can have 5 percent growth." ...Right. The stunning idiocy of this statement needs to be acknowledged. Later on, overlooking his general demeanor and cowardly refusal to go after Romney's healthcare bill, which he had earlier dubbed "Obamney care," his assertion that Politicians had essentially caused the housing price bubble forced me to continue to watch the debate like it was some sort of fatal car wreck. I do not think I am being overly harsh here. The lunacy of T-Paw knows no bounds, and I hope his (mis)statements about the Economy will be dissected just as much as Romney's "flip-flopping" or Bachmann's strong performance.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Did I hear T-Paw Correctly?
During the first Republican Presidential debate, which for the most part did not reveal a whole about any of the Candidates, two things struck me. Number one, Bachmann impressed (which I certainly did not expect) and her polls numbers went up as a result. More importantly though, I learned that T-Paw is an idiot. His assertion that the U.S. is a "special" nation seemed okay, except that by it he meant that the U.S. should adopt an arrogant view of the world to mirror that "specialness." But this assertion paled in comparison to his next statement. Ol' T-Paw then told the American people that "If Brazil can have 5 percent growth, if China can have 5 percent growth, then America can have 5 percent growth." ...Right. The stunning idiocy of this statement needs to be acknowledged. Later on, overlooking his general demeanor and cowardly refusal to go after Romney's healthcare bill, which he had earlier dubbed "Obamney care," his assertion that Politicians had essentially caused the housing price bubble forced me to continue to watch the debate like it was some sort of fatal car wreck. I do not think I am being overly harsh here. The lunacy of T-Paw knows no bounds, and I hope his (mis)statements about the Economy will be dissected just as much as Romney's "flip-flopping" or Bachmann's strong performance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Welcome back Ian.
On the tawdry politics of the housing bubble:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/07/fanniegate-gamechanger-for-the-gop/
The author makes this book sound like some sort of panacea for the Republican party and while it sounds like there may be some damning assertions it is hardly the nuclear bomb this over excited blogger makes it out to be. On the general question of the housing bubble, I do not want to simplify it too much but no matter how you slice it, the current recession comes down to Americans' willingness to use credit to buy things they could not afford. That simple fact greatly undermined the market and, while not the sole cause, is by far the biggest and most important cause of the housing bubble and current financial crisis.
Just ordered book. I'll report after I read.
On the housing front, I'll just reiterate that there are multiple causes to that problem, including Ian's point about Americans' excessive willingness to go into debt, Professor Eismeier's point about political protections for Fannie and Freddie that helped propel housing bubble, government deregulation of financial sector, Wall Street's development of complex financial products which they used to bundle and in the process conceal the risk of the mortgages underneath, etc.
On the Pawlenty front, I agree that he is not giving a solid performance which is making Romney look stronger. Pawlenty's economic comments in recent days have been well beyond the expected level of idiocy from presidential candidates. Shills like Larry Kudlow and John Taylor might be willing to feign eating the crap he's shoveling, but many of the writers at National Review aren't, and I doubt the Wall Street and Big Business components of the Republican party are either (for the record so I don't annoy people- Dems have these elements in the party as well).
Bachmann for the Republican nomination in 2012!!! She has my vote- who knows, perhaps literally. I don't recall my current registration status, but it might be Republican. If not, it could be in time for primary season. All for the love of Bachmann!
Bachmann for VP. Imagine that debate!
I liked TPaw's answer on Nasa privatization. Least extreme of the group on that question.
Post a Comment