1 - 10 Next
In response to:

NED's Chickens Come Home to Roost

Macroman Wrote: 16 hours ago (8:57 AM)
When Buchanan talks about foreign policy, he is almost always right on the money. This excellent column is no exception.
In response to:

Holder's Race Card

Macroman Wrote: Apr 16, 2014 7:57 AM
"If anything, Holder deserves more grief,,," What he deserves is impeachment and removal from office.
Kerry already was a fool. He didn't need any help from the Palestinians.
In response to:

How to Assist Evil

Macroman Wrote: Apr 09, 2014 6:19 AM
Williams's estimate of 35-40 million Chinese killed by their government is on the low side. Several scholars estimate that 40-50 million were killed by mass starvation induced by Mao's collectivist agricultural policies during the Great Leap Forward. Just that one event exceeds the upper bound of Williams's estimate.
In response to:

The Meltdown of the Obama Genderhawks

Macroman Wrote: Apr 09, 2014 6:12 AM
Very good point, mzk.
In response to:

The Meltdown of the Obama Genderhawks

Macroman Wrote: Apr 09, 2014 6:11 AM
I think Malkin's argument and chosen name are both inapt. "Chickenhawk" connoted hypocrisy, implying that those who advocated military action but who had not served were hypocrites. The women Malkin is writing about are not accusing anyone of hypocrisy. Rather, they are making the common mistaken argument that only people who have experienced something can discuss it. Some blacks make the same argument about whites not being fit to discuss black issues. The argument is idiotic, of course. According to it, fat people can not discuss anorexia, thin people cannot discuss obesity, Democrats cannot discuss Republican proposals and vice versa, and no one at all can discuss any events that happened before they were born. It seems to me a better terms for the women in question are genderdopes, genderfools, genderclowns, or if you want to emphasize their shrillness, genderbitches. If you like poetry, how about genderjerks? That's my favorite. Maybe someone else has an even better one.
In a CORRECT defense of Jefferson, the genetic evidence proves only that *a* Jefferson had children by Sally Hemmings. The historical evidence on which Jefferson that was is contradictory, fragmentary, and mostly hear-say and rumor. Political opportunists then and now (e.g., Bill Clinton, to divert attention from his genetically proven escapade with Monica Lewinsky) declare that Thomas Jefferson was the man, but in fact we don't know that and have no way of knowing it. Any time you see the claim surface today in a political discussion, you know the person bringing it up (a) already has lost on substantive grounds whatever argument he is making and needs a diversion or (b) has ulterior motives and needs a diversion from logic and evidence.
In response to:

Central Bankers Building More Bubbles

Macroman Wrote: Apr 06, 2014 9:55 AM
Shedlock on anything to do with economics is an exercise in ignorance. This column is no exception. However, rather than go through the details - yet again - of the multitude of things Shedlock does not understand about basic monetary economics, let me pose a simple question: If spotting bubbles is so easy and Shedlock is so good at it, why isn't he a billionaire yet?
In response to:

How Foreign is Our Policy?

Macroman Wrote: Apr 01, 2014 6:57 AM
FederalFarmer, I would distinguish between ignorance and effectiveness. As far as I can tell, Obama knows nothing about anything substantive, so he is monumentally ignorant. Nonetheless, he has been successful at implementing his Marxist ideology, so he is catastrophically effective. That does leave your main point solidly intact.
In response to:

When Is Government Debt a Problem?

Macroman Wrote: Apr 01, 2014 6:44 AM
This column is outstanding! Government spending is the true drain on resources. The amount drained away does not depend on whether the spending is financed by taxes or debt. That financing choice affects only who pays and when they pay. The amount of resources lost to private use is properly measured by what the government spends. High taxes have their own independent disincentive effects that further harm the economy, but the only reason that taxes are so high is that the spending they finance is so high.
1 - 10 Next