Category Archives: Republicans

Political Elites Want Mitt Romney, Conservative Voters Know Better

Posted on by
4

One of my all-time favorite political blogs, PowerLine, is in overdrive pushing Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination.

According to PowerLine, it seems Republicans are foolish to not support Mitt Romney:

Is this the Democratic Party’s dream, or what? In a national poll that came out today, Santorum is leading Mitt Romney by eight points among likely Republican voters. Can Republicans possibly be that foolish? Is it conceivable that a president with Obama’s lousy record could coast to victory, virtually by default, because the Republicans nominate a candidate who would rather talk about gynecology than debt?

Sorry PowerLine. The left wants, and is doing its best, to ensure Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee. No matter who challenges Romney, the left wing media will drive the narrative to the most inane and insignificant minutia in an effort to destroy the Romney rival.

It is plainly obvious throughout the primary process, whoever challenges Romney becomes the target of some of the most trivial nonsense, forcing him or her to spend precious time deflecting attacks rather than discussing issues.

As us non-insider, non party elites understand. Once Romney becomes our nominee, the media will turn on Mitt. He will be destroyed within weeks by relentless left wing media attacks.

His first interview after securing the GOP nomination will go something like this:

Media Elite (ME): Mr. Romney, when you were governor of Massachusetts you signed into law a single payer, state-run, mandatory health care plan…

Mitt Romney (MR): Wait… Let me clarify. This was a state issue and the people of our state wanted this. As you know, I’m a big states rights, 10th Amendment supporter.

ME: When given the option you supported, and signed into law, a big government program. Since you are running as a conservative, why didn’t you take a free market approach similar to Governor Rick Perry took in reforming health care in Texas?

MR: Like I said, this was a state issue and I’m a big states rights, 10th Amendment supporter.

ME: Mr. Romney, you are running on the issue that you understand the economy. However when faced with an economic problem such as rising health care costs, you implemented government-run health care that, in a short 6 years, has become a financial disaster for Massachusetts. How do you explain your claim of economic expertise in light of the financial collapse of your signature legislation while Governor of Massachusetts?

MR: This was a state issue… And I’m a big states rights supporter?

ME: Mr. Romney, you claim to be a conservative, yet your signature accomplishment while Governor is the implementation of a very non-conservative piece of legislation. How can you reassure conservatives that if elected President that you will advocate a conservative agenda?

MR: I’m a big states rights… I’ve got nothing.

ME: You got that right.

Can PowerLine writers possibly be that foolish to be in the tank for Mitt Romney?

Markets don’t fail… Politicians on the other hand…

Posted on by
Reply

When you see nonsense such as this:

Democrats call for broader investigation into banks’ foreclosure processes

…….

Meanwhile, Maryland Democrat Elijah Cummings, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asking him to bring high-ranking executives from the nation’s biggest mortgage banks to Capitol Hill testify about foreclosure abuses.

“Rather than using its substantial investigative powers to protect American consumers from the abuses of banks, the committee has focused instead on attacking the new agency created by Congress to protect these same consumers,” Cummings wrote.

Miller said the settlement won’t likely include enough relief for those who are underwater on their mortgages. He and Brown said they don’t yet know what mortgages are subject to the settlement because negotiations are ongoing.

Remember, markets don’t fail.

But markets don’t “fail.” They respond rationally, quickly and often brutally to conditions as they find them. If they see a shortage of supply or an excess of demand, they’ll drive prices higher. Conversely, excess supply or falling demand drives prices lower. If you’re looking for villains, examine why supply is constricted or inflated or why demand is stifled or encouraged. But don’t blame the markets for responding accordingly.

Politicians, on the other hand, do.

For example, the onset of the financial crisis three or four years ago was largely due in the US and the UK to excessive demand for mortgages from people who couldn’t afford them. In the US, this was driven by government mandates to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do just that – pump up demand for housing. In the UK, tight restrictions on construction limited supply to a market that quite rationally came to believe home ownership was a sound substitute for more productive investment.
In both cases, the bankers’ cost of funding was distorted by deliberately low official interest-rate policies, the implicit knowledge they wouldn’t be allowed to fail and lax competition enforcement that led to the likes of Royal Bank of Scotland swallowing up competitors. The logical response by the markets was to divert money to housing, just as the politicians wanted.

How could anyone think government is going to solve this, or any other economic mess, when the government created the mess in the first place.

Even China is losing Manufacturing Jobs

Posted on by
4

According to economist at ASI, mass employment in factory’s is going the way of the horse and buggy:

It’s a consitent trope from those over on the mouth breathing left, that everything would just be better if we did more manufacturing in the UK. More specifically, that if we just had more manufacturing then everyone would be employed. Which would be so nice, wouldn’t it?

The problem with this is that mass employment in manufacturing just isn’t coming back. Ever.

Manufacturing output in the UK kept going up until 2005 or so (with variations for recessions, to be sure). Manufacturing output in the US is still going up and I don’t think anyone needs to be reminded that manufacturing output in China is rising. However, rising output does not mean more jobs. Not necessarily at least.

Not only are increases in productivity curbing growth within the manufacturing sector. As pointed out last may here at MCT, manufacturing as a percentage of the US and global GDP has steadily declined over the last 40+ years.

As a result, even China has lost manufacturing jobs

Yes, China is losing manufacturing jobs. The world as a whole is losing manufacturing jobs. The cause is exactly the same thing that led to the loss of agricultural jobs 80 to 90 years ago: increasing productivity in that activity.

Remember this the next time a politician rants about ‘creating more manufacturing jobs here in the US.’ Because, the only way this will happen is if the government creates subsidized works projects. Like Solyndra.

Newt Video: Christmas Day 1776

Posted on by
3

I’m still in the ‘anybody be Romney’ camp as far as 2012 goes. Furthermore, I’m not sold on Newt however, I really like this video.

YouTube Preview Image

2012 Presidential Race: Newt’s Positions on the Issues and His Record

Posted on by
Reply

I guess an “Answering the Attacks” web page is an effective way for Newt to answer his critics.  The page gives some fairly detailed answers to the many criticisms of him. This one is my favorite:

Q: So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?

On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News’ Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve ever done”.

You got that right.

Republican Senators Mike Enzi and Lamar Alexander signed on to Democrat Dick Durbin Internet Sales Tax Bill

Posted on by
Reply

This move will really ‘help’ grow the economy and pull us out of a recession:

Sen. Richard Durbin rebooted his Internet sales tax bill, picking up crucial GOP support by exempting small online retailers and making it easier for states to comply.

Along with Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the Illinois Democrat wants to allow states to collect sales taxes from Internet retailers if they adopt one of two sales tax simplification options outlined in the legislation introduced Wednesday.

The bill addresses a legal loophole, created by Supreme Court decisions predating the Internet, which allows online retailers to avoid paying state sales taxes that brick-and-mortar stores must remit. As online sales soared at the expense of traditional retailers, states and cities have missed out on billions in tax revenues.

“We are not creating any new taxes in this bill,” Mr. Durbin said. “It’s a mechanism to collect taxes that are already on the books.”

Of course, states and cities didn’t cut back spending when they supposedly lost the billions in taxes they were expecting to confiscate.

Can the European Union Survive?

Posted on by
2

Meanwhile, the global landscape is changing rapidly and very few people in the media or political world are talking about it.

Via STRATFOR:

But the financial crisis had its greatest impact in Europe, where it is triggering a generational shift. Since 1991, the idea of an integrated Europe has been a driving force of the global economy. As mentioned, it also has been presented as an implicit alternative to the United States as the global center of gravity.

Collectively, Europe’s economy was slightly larger than the U.S. economy. If mobilized, that inherent power made Europe a match for the United States. In the foreign policy arena, the Europeans prided themselves on a different approach to international affairs than the Americans used. This was based on a concept known as “soft power” — which relied on political and economic, as opposed to military, tools — an analog to the manner in which it saw itself managing the European Union. And Europe was a major consumer of goods, particularly Chinese goods. (It imported more of the latter than the United States did.) Taken together, Europe’s strengths and successes would allow it to redefine the international system — and the assumption for the past generation was that it was successful.

In the context of the ongoing European financial crisis, the issue is not simply whether the euro survives or whether Brussels regulators oversee aspects of the Italian economy. The fundamental issue is whether the core concepts of the European Union remain intact. It is obvious that the European Union that existed in 2007 is not the one that exists today. Its formal structure appears the same, but it does not function the same. The issues confronting it are radically different. Moreover, relations among the EU nations have a completely different dynamic. The question of what the European Union might become has been replaced by the question of whether it can survive. Some think of this as a temporary aberration. We see it as a permanent change in Europe, one with global consequences.

If the EU dissolves, not only will there be an economic void to fill, but there will be a political one as well. And if we don’t fill it, you know China will be more than happy to step in.

Issues like this are much more important to discuss, rather than the latest unsubstantiated political scandal.