Comments Posted By allen
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 74 Comments
CONSERVATIVES KEEP LEARNING THE WRONG LESSONS FROM REAGAN
The problem with the GOP right now is they're looking for Reagen in all the wrong places. Reagen built up a certain trust factor. The current GOP, would you trust them with your kids' lunch money?
As far as I'm concerned they squandered any trust I might have in them on fiscal matters. They created other problems for themselves as well: abject cronyism, corruption, and charging forward to slay mythical social demons.
What GOP in Congress need to do is show that they are serious about government. That is to say maximum efficiency with minimum waste. They can do this by standing on the floor, after exhaustive research, and point out the waste and profligate spending. They can go on to show that each budget item would have metrics attached. This would entail extensive work on their part with some deep thinking about how our money is spent. In other words build spending policy on knowledge, not slogans.
Then I might start to think they might be trusted. A Whitehouse run will have to be built on succeeding in Congress first.
Comment Posted By Allen On 1.06.2009 @ 17:11
DEALERGATE: STATISTICAL COINCIDENCE OR POLITICAL BIAS? (IMPORTANT UPDATE BELOW)
The FOX study does not appear to support other folks' take on the matter. For example the Nate Silver analysis you quoted showed that dealers give to republicans 8 to 1. The FOX analysis shows a roughly equal split. At first blush it would appear the FOX study is not a very representative sample.
This was the problem from the beginning. A closing of a local dealership is a very emotional thing for a community, and people will leap to all sorts of conclusions. Chrysler did a piss poor job of explaining what was going on so they deserve some blowback for this.
As a side note several months ago a local Chrysler dealer was shuttered. They literally showed up with car haulers one Friday morning and poof they were gone. The employees received their last pay check 3 hours later. No one has said anything about who, what, or why. As one can imagine the rumore are thick.
Comment Posted By Allen On 29.05.2009 @ 14:14
US DECLARES HEALTH EMERGENCY WHILE OBAMA GOLFS
Political appointees needed? What exactly are the skill sets many of them bring to the table?
I'm pretty sure the non-political staffers at HHS, Treasury, and whatnot, have the experience and skills to "muddle" through. The question is, will any of their approaches be deemed "politically acceptable" and thus implemented.
Comment Posted By Allen On 27.04.2009 @ 18:12
WATERBOARDING: THE S.E.R.E. STRAWMAN
Rick,
I thought I'd give you a little bit of background from the SERE school I went through. One of the points they try to teach you is that everyone has their breaking point, and it might come early. The idea being that you will eventually give up information, and to not feel overly guilty about it. The sense of guilt, if too strong, will eventually rob you of your will to survive captivity.
It' s really not intended to teach you to defeat it, but to survive the eventual surrender.
Comment Posted By Allen On 25.04.2009 @ 17:23
NOT A MISPRINT: OBAMA SEEKS CUTS OF 100 <em>MILLION</em> TO CURB DEFICIT
I can't decide which is funnier. Obama thinking this makes him look like a serious deficit hawk, or his breathless admirers cheering him on.
I actually thought it was 100 Billion given the OMG! style of reporting. When I heard 100 million I couldn't stop laughing.
Comment Posted By Allen On 20.04.2009 @ 15:45
ON FAILURE - OBAMA'S AND AMERICA'S
I'll take a different tack on this; it's a moot point. There is an assumption out there that higher government spending will stimulate the economy. Long term economic data does not support this. There is an opposing assumption out there that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. Long term economic data does not support this.
I view government fiscal policy as a capacitive Maxwellian element. That is, it reduces the oscillations. Having said that, bank policy is a different matter. The problem we face is not how our economy is growing or shrinking currently. But, do people have a fundamental trust in "money" in all of it's forms?
Comment Posted By Allen On 9.03.2009 @ 17:40
The American people expect their government to heal them, secure their economic status, and make them whole. It's a fact of life, and it's also true they will sell their children into bondage to achieve it.
One might argue about how we have arrived at this place; I am just surveying the topogrphy and see that it is true. You might yak about the fact that we are where we are at, but it is indisputable we are there. No amount of rhetoric will change the fact that the people gleefully bought into this.
What I find amusing is that the supposed beneficiaries of this system will soon chafe at their harnesses.
Comment Posted By Allen On 2.03.2009 @ 19:56
WHEN REALITY, INTENT, AND WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY DON'T MATTER
When I first saw this cartoon my reaction was along the lines of: one million monkeys with a million typewriters still can't write Shakespeare.
Given what goes on in Congress, it wasn't such a bad metaphor to me. Maybe, just maybe, this was all this was. A bunch of crazed monkeys in Congress flinging poo at each other and proclaiming their brilliance while the artist doesn't think so much of their final work.
Comment Posted By Allen On 20.02.2009 @ 16:23
BLEAK CHOICES FACING GEITHNER IN TRYING TO SAVE THE BANKS
I believe nothing can be done to ameliorate the pain and suffering that is inherent in this economic mess. In fact I believe any further government action will actually accentuate it.
An economy is like an ecosystem in that it responds to a complex feedback system, and a myriad of variables. The very idea that government has the "solution" is foolish to me.
Which I suppose, goes to my objection to a government that's the fixer. It's not the idea that government cannot have a positive influence; it's the idea that government has the solution.
I would suggest the work of Volterra to you on this. Certainly government can mandate the numbers of supply and demand, but it cannot control the subsequent interactions.
Regards
Comment Posted By Allen On 8.02.2009 @ 20:28
A thought provoking piece indeed. I have been doing a similar thing myself, but on a different basis. I have been examining my definitions and metrics for my underlying assumptions. For example, "big government."
How does one define and measure that? Is it total expenditures, percent of GDP, or what?
I look forward to the next piece.
Regards.
Not so much how you define big government as much as a recognition that it simply exists. What has been troubling me for a few years and could never put into words was the idea that the reality of living in such a complex society did not match the idealism of conservatism's dictums about "small" government." How do you shrink the behemoth when even most conservatives demand the services it provides? This is the contradiction Tanenhaus points out and it has killed "movement" conservatism which could never answer that question. For instance, do you really want to live in a country where businesses can pollute the air and water to their heart's content? If not, you need an EPA to ride herd. Do you want a country where drugs are unsafe, products can kill you or your children, go back to the days of stock jobbers who cheated people on a regular basis, etc, etc, etc?
Of course not. Even most conservatives recognize the need for these agencies and departments. Now here's the nuance - is there a way for conservatism to thrive, to be relevant in the context of what we now call "big government?" I think so and will explore that tomorrow.
ed.
Comment Posted By Allen On 6.02.2009 @ 16:47
