1 - 10 Next
Correct usage: "...the media *are* unhappy."
In response to:

Early Presidential Prospects

Macroman Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 7:43 AM
"As a result, everyone knows what the Democrats stand for, but even some Republicans in Congress seem to have only a hazy idea of what principles Republicans stand for." I disagree. I believe that a great many people know the specific policy proposals that the Democrats stand for but do not know the principles behind them. Those are to form a majority of the powerful with lower-income people to keep the powerful in power by stealing from the middle and giving the proceeds to the people at the bottom. That's what communism is always about, and it's no different here in the US than it was in the Soviet Union or mainland China. Most people don't seem to know that that's what the Democrats really stand for.
In response to:

Early Presidential Prospects

Macroman Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 7:40 AM
"The more optimistic among us may hope that the Republicans will nominate somebody who stands for something, rather than the bland leading the bland -- the kind of candidates the Republican establishment seems to prefer, even if the voters don't." That's because what the Republican establishment wants is to stay in power, even if it means being in the minority. They like the perks of office and want to keep them. Governing the country is an afterthought if it's ever a thought at all.
This guy is really a looney-tune. He argues that the federal government has grown because the Fed monetized the debt. Complete nonsense. If he thinks otherwise, let him produce the stats to prove it. He complains about government-manipulated statistics. Produce the evidence to back up that charge, bozo, or shut up. The Fed has made lots of mistakes, but most of those were visible only in hindsight. The Fed also prevented the last recession from becoming a second Great Depression by its understanding of what it did wrong in the first Great Depression and not doing that again. Paul gives the Fed no credit for that. In fact, Paul criticizes what the Fed did between 2008 and now but offers no alternative policy. What would he have done - let the money supply collapse by not intervening and buying federal debt? Buying debt is how the Fed injected monetary base - currency - to offset the huge reduction in the money multiplier that happened in 2009 and that has not yet been reversed. Paul seems to understand none of that. I like his idea of auditing the Fed, I like the idea of a much more rules-based monetary policy a la John Taylor, and I like the idea of reducing the responsibilities (and power!) that the Fed has by moving most of its regulatory function to another agency. I do not like the idea of an economic ignoramus like Paul investigating an institution whose fundamental operating procedures he does not understand.
Romney in the lead and another Bush in second place. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about how the Stupid Party gets its name?
In response to:

In Denial About the Attack in France

Macroman Wrote: Jan 14, 2015 7:08 AM
"When America was hit on 9/11, the world united around us." Yes, but soon after Jack Chirac (as the Brits scornfully call him), who originally had said he supported the US invasion of Iraq, unexpectedly pulled out, stabbing our president in the back. 80% of the French opposed the invasion, and most of them did so out of dislike for the US. 20% said they wanted the US to lose. Now they are whining because, mirabile dictu, the Islamist crazies have attacked them. You know what? To hell with the French.
In response to:

Basic Economics

Macroman Wrote: Jan 14, 2015 7:00 AM
I see why you are a Loyal Dem. You think that scarcity, which is just the economic version of the physical principle of conservation of mass, can be eliminated by government decree. While you are at it, why not have the government declare the law of gravity null and void? That would make it much easier to fly. How about friction? Let's legislate it out of existence. The law of entropy? Have the government repeal it. Just think of all the wonderful things we can do simply by declaring reality null and void. What have we been waiting for?
In response to:

Basic Economics

Macroman Wrote: Jan 14, 2015 6:54 AM
"And, I might add, it provides an understanding of some economic phenomena that might prove elusive to a Ph.D. economist." Yes, indeed. Just look at some of the incredibly stupid things even Nobel winners have said or done, such as signing an open letter supporting a higher minimum wage, or, if you are a real masochist, read Paul Krugman's columns.
In response to:

Man of the Year: Jonathan Gruber

Macroman Wrote: Jan 13, 2015 12:58 PM
"No, you may not be able to fool all the people all the time, as Mr. Lincoln pointed out, but you can make a pretty penny, or rather a pretty million, trying to -- and, in Professor Gruber's case, succeeding." Or, as Pappy Maverick used to say, "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, and those are mighty good odds." That just about sums up the Democrat political philosophy.
In response to:

New Year's Irresolution

Macroman Wrote: Jan 13, 2015 8:52 AM
"Instead, there is a remarkable consistency between Obama's domestic policies and his foreign policies on both economic and military matters." Yes, and it's very simple to describe: He's a true believer in communism, and he hates his country. The worst president in the history of the country, which is really saying something.
1 - 10 Next