Andrew,
You're probably getting a lot of email in response to the letter you reprinted from the tea party apologist, but here's my take on it, from a fiscal conservative.
Your letter your reader sent you is most notable for what it doesn't say. The reason that the tea partiers aren't taken very seriously is not that they aren't looking "backwards" but because they haven't even attempted to explain why they made no objection to the debt piled up during the Bush Administration and what has changed for them since the election on this issue.
I keep looking for a "we thought the debt was less important than the War on Terror but now we see we lost our focus" or "we believed Bush that the increased debt was managable over time but the economic downturn makes us more scared than ever" but there is nothing even close to that. They are cynical budget deficit flip-floppers, whose refusal to come to grips with good vs bad debt makes it appear that they believe all our economic problems should be laid at the feet of Obama.
Your letter writer is, indeed, looking forward. But while another 3 1/2 years of blaming Obama for every problem, real or imagined might be forward thinking in the temporal sense, it isn't in the connstructive sense.
Your pal,
Fred
Friday, April 17, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
blog purging, and AIG
Andrew,
Your recent purging of names from your blog roll brought to my mind a snarky response at first: "If those were AIG blogs, they'd be getting paid to stay in the Blog Love box."
But on second thought your action made me think that there is a better conservative response to the AIG bonuses: Why would any conservative want companies and employees to be locked into jobs that those employees aren't very good at? Isn't a conservative response to encourage job movement, so as to get people into jobs that they are good at? Like paying farmers not to grow food, saying that taxpayers need to pay to keep bad employees at AIG turns the free market on its head.
AIG (and their apologists) seem to be saying that the worst thing would be for those employees getting the bonuses to leave (presumably to competitors, though that's probably not true in the short term because of non-compete contracts and the crappy market for financial services workers anyway). I think giving financial services workers the opportunity to find work in other industries is probably the best thing, for them and us.
Fred
Your recent purging of names from your blog roll brought to my mind a snarky response at first: "If those were AIG blogs, they'd be getting paid to stay in the Blog Love box."
But on second thought your action made me think that there is a better conservative response to the AIG bonuses: Why would any conservative want companies and employees to be locked into jobs that those employees aren't very good at? Isn't a conservative response to encourage job movement, so as to get people into jobs that they are good at? Like paying farmers not to grow food, saying that taxpayers need to pay to keep bad employees at AIG turns the free market on its head.
AIG (and their apologists) seem to be saying that the worst thing would be for those employees getting the bonuses to leave (presumably to competitors, though that's probably not true in the short term because of non-compete contracts and the crappy market for financial services workers anyway). I think giving financial services workers the opportunity to find work in other industries is probably the best thing, for them and us.
Fred
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
View from Your Church
Andrew,
Your letter writer is dead on when asking "where is the grace?" when it comes to the Catholic Church.
But grace comes from the Holy Spirit. And a Church which is infallible in "core" areas doesn't need the Holy Spirit anymore, do they?
Grace doesn't come from obedience. But power does. I suspect Pope Benedict understands the latter quite well, and has a well crafted agreement about the former.
Fred
Your letter writer is dead on when asking "where is the grace?" when it comes to the Catholic Church.
But grace comes from the Holy Spirit. And a Church which is infallible in "core" areas doesn't need the Holy Spirit anymore, do they?
Grace doesn't come from obedience. But power does. I suspect Pope Benedict understands the latter quite well, and has a well crafted agreement about the former.
Fred
Friday, February 27, 2009
McCain's Inherent Ill-Temper
Andrew
Linking a transcript provided by The Plank of an exchenge between President Obama and Senator McCain, you referred to "McCain's inherent ill-temper". I don't believe this characterization was fair - and I don't believe it's one you would have made if you'd seen the video of McCain making his comment. Here it is, at HuffPo.
I agree that a read of the transcript leaves McCain sounding combative. But when you watch the video it's apparent his tone is far more agreeable than one gathers from simply reading his words.
Joe Kinlan
Linking a transcript provided by The Plank of an exchenge between President Obama and Senator McCain, you referred to "McCain's inherent ill-temper". I don't believe this characterization was fair - and I don't believe it's one you would have made if you'd seen the video of McCain making his comment. Here it is, at HuffPo.
I agree that a read of the transcript leaves McCain sounding combative. But when you watch the video it's apparent his tone is far more agreeable than one gathers from simply reading his words.
Joe Kinlan
Jindal & Kenneth the Page, GOP reactions
Andrew,
Regarding Althouse, et al, we have to keep in mind that one of the main reasons that Jindal was chosen to give the GOP response to the speech is precisely because of his skin color. Therefore, any negativity he faces from critics must, by definition, be because of his color.
The GOP is being too cute, by half, here. And like a lot of their recent political decisions, the American people are by and large beyond them.
Fred
Regarding Althouse, et al, we have to keep in mind that one of the main reasons that Jindal was chosen to give the GOP response to the speech is precisely because of his skin color. Therefore, any negativity he faces from critics must, by definition, be because of his color.
The GOP is being too cute, by half, here. And like a lot of their recent political decisions, the American people are by and large beyond them.
Fred
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Gregg to run Commerce
Obama picks Judd Gregg (R-NH) for Commerce Sect.
The NH governor agreed to select a Republican to replace him in the Senate, which cleared the way for him to go to Commerce.
A win-win, I think.
The NH governor agreed to select a Republican to replace him in the Senate, which cleared the way for him to go to Commerce.
A win-win, I think.
On Daschle's tax problems
Andrew,
You're right that Daschle's tax problems should be less of a problem than Geithner's problems, but that isn't why Daschle should be dropped. He should be dropped because he knew of the problem and tried to hide it from the Obama team.
In other words, Daschle should be dropped because he fails the transparancy test, a test failure neither Packer not the NY Times even mention.
Your pal,
Fred
You're right that Daschle's tax problems should be less of a problem than Geithner's problems, but that isn't why Daschle should be dropped. He should be dropped because he knew of the problem and tried to hide it from the Obama team.
In other words, Daschle should be dropped because he fails the transparancy test, a test failure neither Packer not the NY Times even mention.
Your pal,
Fred
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)