Daily Archives: January 25, 2010

PUBLIC SQUARE 01/25/10

The following comment was made in reference to a program that feeds poor children:

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed,” Bauer said, according to the Greenville News. “You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”

At a town hall meeting Thursday in northwestern South Carolina, Bauer noted his grandmother “told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed.”

The Republican lt. governor did not specify if he included Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, car company and Wall Street bailouts in the category of government assistance that he disdains.

“The problem is, there are so many folks now who don’t have to do a thing. In government, we continue to reward bad behavior. Anytime we give somebody money, we’re rewarding them. We’re telling them to keep doing what they’re doing. Government’s got to change,” he said. “Babies having babies, somebody’s got to talk about. … Education can not really be improved until we address the real problem.”

To fix that, he said, “If you receive goods or services from the government, you owe something back.”

 

The real reason I bring this up, a Political commentator this morning made the statement that they have yet to figure out whether this will be good for his campaign or bad for it?

REALLY? You have to take the time to figure out if such a statement and comparison is good or bad for the campaign?

Maybe then there is no debate left to be had, this is one screwed up world!

TOSMARTTOBEGOP

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under Ethics, The Public Square

The Great Recession for Thee vs. the Great Recession for Me…

In this Krugman editorial he examines the pluses and minuses of retaining Ben Bernanke as the Fed Reserve Chairman.  Mr. Bernanke has become an important  symbol of the bailing out of big banks, but also the lack of progress on job creation.

Bernake was complacent as the danger clouds came in.  But Krugman supports him because his replacements could be worse?  Bernanke has not supported job growth alternatives and in fact just the opposite. He has done nothing to offer suggestions on how to bring down unemployment faster.

I’ll let Krugman defend himself here: 

“But — and here comes my defense of a Bernanke reappointment — any good alternative for the position would face a bruising fight in the Senate. And choosing a bad alternative would have truly dire consequences for the economy.

“Furthermore, policy decisions at the Fed are made by committee vote. And while Mr. Bernanke seems insufficiently concerned about unemployment and too concerned about inflation, many of his colleagues are worse. Replacing him with someone less established, with less ability to sway the internal discussion, could end up strengthening the hands of the inflation hawks and doing even more damage to job creation.”

The Paulster continues: 

“That’s not a ringing endorsement, but it’s the best I can do.

“If Mr. Bernanke is reappointed, he and his colleagues need to realize that what they consider a policy success is actually a policy failure. We have avoided a second Great Depression, but we are facing mass unemployment — unemployment that will blight the lives of millions of Americans — for years to come. And it’s the Fed’s responsibility to do all it can to end that blight.”

Am I being too critical when I say this analysis sounds like “the poor folk can have their recession, we’ll just have to get by with ours”?

8 Comments

Filed under Economics