1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Stupid Is As Krugman Does

James64 Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 12:15 PM
Odds-on, he runs his own budget with a Friedman flair, but he will justify it as profoundly different from the needs of macroeconomics.
In response to:

Stupid Is As Krugman Does

James64 Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 12:12 PM
I like how he builds a consensus with no more than forty individuals.
In response to:

Stupid Is As Krugman Does

James64 Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 12:11 PM
He does see some things right. "And what policy makers don't know, or worse, what they think they know that isn't so, can definitely hurt you" and "Am I saying that the professional consensus is always right? No. But when politicians pick and choose which experts - or in many cases, "expert" - to believe, the odds are they will choose badly". These are truisms. He just firmly believes he - and his ideological peers - are immune.
In response to:

The Three Stooges of the Apocalypse

James64 Wrote: Aug 14, 2014 4:41 PM
Whatever they accomplish, it is for them and no one else. They cannot campaign for something, then succeed, as they will have to find a new campaign. Why do that, when this one works? For good or bad, it is selfishness that motivates. With some, the selfish desire results in doing good - even if the desire is for the wrong reason, such as wanting to be seen doing good, or the right reason that they actually feel good doing good. With others - as seen too often and in this administration - there is the desire to do whatever THEY consider good, but without concern for actual outcomes. These folk exist for power and fame alone (wealth is secondary and often a by-product of the two). So, they selfishly campaign - for the power and/or fame - but are careless about results.
“Thanks to your passion and advocacy and the irrefutable rightness of your cause, our government – the government of the people, by the people and for the people – will become just a little bit fairer,” Got to admit the mans audacity: forcing his personal vision of "fairness" (which really isn't) and "government of the people, by the people and for the people" - by using executive order "diktat"? If not for the damage to our country, it would be a laugh
I cannot disagree that O is the most terrible POTUS we have had and that alone qualifies him as worst. Hoover spent the '21 downturn ( we call it that, when it was initially worse than '29 - go figure) doing his humanitarian work and fell fully into the "government care and control" camp. His emotion and ignorance - and fear - colored everything since and he was certain government could cure the perceived social ills of the so-called "capitalism" of the day. That the general understanding then was that capitalism was what we today call "crony-capitalism" - business colluding with bureaucrats. Very few understood that capitalism neither wants, nor needs government direction.
Perhaps I am being kind; the damage his progressive ignorance of economics did more to entrench the Progressive mind-set in Washington than any other. His - and progressives - idea of helping the People is to give them a fish, rather than teach them how. Theirs really isn't that far different than old aristocracies- except the wealth to do their "good works" is not theirs to give. The attitude, however, is the same
Hoover's decisions were based in the fear (rather than knowledge) he gained during the 1921 downturn. His efforts then we're humanitarian and emotional - which help some get thru an ordeal, but does nothing greater. He then applied that fear and humanitarian desire onto an economic process - with the now-obvious disastrous result. I wonder if he ever realized the truth about fear: that it is a wonderful motivator, but a terrible decision-maker.
They Law we live by is ours and Muslims wishing to live here must accept and obey them, as any other citizen. Or don't come at all. This is also the the Rule for ALL immigrants, that they accept the Law of our country. Illegals have made no such oath.
One would think that, as our Rule of Law is based in English Common law, there would be no question; we cannot simply choose another form to coexist, or supplant that heritage. Ratification of the Constitution which promotes consistency with THAT Law was the acceptance of a contract and not subject to change for anyone's convenience.
1 - 10 Next