Hannity ignored a similar screed and, not surprisingly, Newsday didn't print it either, although some of the individual columnists do respond. I've sent things to the candidates and when there is a response - not often - it is a thanks-for-the-interest form letter.
The point is that talking to people who agree will not do any good. It is important to rationally engage and respond to people who disagree. The election will be determined by the 15-20% of the people who don't pay much attention. They are the target. The Hannitys of the world certainly are not aiming at the right place and neither are most of the primary candidates.
Santorum's main ability is to increase Obama's chances;
Paul may be right about lots of things but most of his troops are proud of saying they will stay home in November unless Paul is nominated so we might as well have Dole again.
Unfortunately, Newt is damaged goods.
So, why is there a doubt about who it should be? Social issues. Wonderful.
Monday, March 5, 2012
The wrong values
I can't take any more.
I am starting a campaign - possibly too late but it needs doing. It is a campaign to get the Republican primary back to the real world. The real world being one where the goal is to have a Republican candidate that:
has a chance to win;
will campaign on issues that impact the majority of the electorate;
has the background to be credible on these issues;
has a personal life that is beyond distortion, although it will be distorted anyway;
understands that while values are important, values are inherently divisive and will not win this election; and does win the Presidential election
So, it is campaign to re-direct the primary effort. Right now, the Republican primary will be determined by people who are focused on the wrong things. As a result, while gas prices reach $4; the Administration admits it doesn't know what to do about gas; the Administration is sending guns to Mexico while Mexico keeps sending us Mexicans; every week another green company that was loaned millions goes bankrupt; I'll stop but there is obviously more, while all this is happening, the Republican candidates who are really pretty close on stuff that matters are falling all over themselves. Why? About whether Fred can marry George, whether George should be in the Army, abortion, contraception, whose theology is the correct one and other stuff that will not get anyone a job, lower their taxes, decrease spending, or stop us from becoming Greece.
Meanwhile, the guy who could win has to defend himself because these primary voters think (and I use "think" in its broadest sense):
that members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are not CHRISTians,
that Mormons are cultists but their religion is not,
that policies he had 20+ years ago makes a difference now. (Note: 26 years before Reagan's speech for Goldwater, he was campaigning for Truman. It's that inability to think again.)
Like it or not, the "values" ship has sailed. The election will be won by the guy that the the majority thinks can get the economy going in the right direction. So, spending time and money on stuff that is irrelevant and not related to the economy is exactly where Obama wants it to be. We know Democrats are stupid but the Republican primary focus is also exactly where Obama wants it to be. What does that make Republicans? Every time there is another values quote (mostly Santorum but the others are forced to also make similar statements), Santorum polls higher in the primary and Obama polls higher in a head to head race with him. How is that good? It is time for reality - Santorum, Newt and Paul have no chance in the general election so let's stop acting like dopey Democrats and get the campaign back to the economy and the only guy who will campaign on it.
So, my campaign is answer every email I get of an anti-Obama cartoon, joke, or anecdote, (almost none of which are related to the economy and most are about "values") with a reminder that "It is the economy, stupid" is the most accurate political advice available. The rest will take care of itself, I hope.
Have everyone spread the word. "It is the economy, stupid"
I am starting a campaign - possibly too late but it needs doing. It is a campaign to get the Republican primary back to the real world. The real world being one where the goal is to have a Republican candidate that:
has a chance to win;
will campaign on issues that impact the majority of the electorate;
has the background to be credible on these issues;
has a personal life that is beyond distortion, although it will be distorted anyway;
understands that while values are important, values are inherently divisive and will not win this election; and does win the Presidential election
So, it is campaign to re-direct the primary effort. Right now, the Republican primary will be determined by people who are focused on the wrong things. As a result, while gas prices reach $4; the Administration admits it doesn't know what to do about gas; the Administration is sending guns to Mexico while Mexico keeps sending us Mexicans; every week another green company that was loaned millions goes bankrupt; I'll stop but there is obviously more, while all this is happening, the Republican candidates who are really pretty close on stuff that matters are falling all over themselves. Why? About whether Fred can marry George, whether George should be in the Army, abortion, contraception, whose theology is the correct one and other stuff that will not get anyone a job, lower their taxes, decrease spending, or stop us from becoming Greece.
Meanwhile, the guy who could win has to defend himself because these primary voters think (and I use "think" in its broadest sense):
that members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are not CHRISTians,
that Mormons are cultists but their religion is not,
that policies he had 20+ years ago makes a difference now. (Note: 26 years before Reagan's speech for Goldwater, he was campaigning for Truman. It's that inability to think again.)
Like it or not, the "values" ship has sailed. The election will be won by the guy that the the majority thinks can get the economy going in the right direction. So, spending time and money on stuff that is irrelevant and not related to the economy is exactly where Obama wants it to be. We know Democrats are stupid but the Republican primary focus is also exactly where Obama wants it to be. What does that make Republicans? Every time there is another values quote (mostly Santorum but the others are forced to also make similar statements), Santorum polls higher in the primary and Obama polls higher in a head to head race with him. How is that good? It is time for reality - Santorum, Newt and Paul have no chance in the general election so let's stop acting like dopey Democrats and get the campaign back to the economy and the only guy who will campaign on it.
So, my campaign is answer every email I get of an anti-Obama cartoon, joke, or anecdote, (almost none of which are related to the economy and most are about "values") with a reminder that "It is the economy, stupid" is the most accurate political advice available. The rest will take care of itself, I hope.
Have everyone spread the word. "It is the economy, stupid"
It isn't free
There were two mistakes made in the latest health care mandate. The first was to display the President’s complete lack of business sense. Somehow, he has determined that moving the requirement to pay for this coverage or any other coverage from the employer to the insurance company is “cost neutral” or free. It is not free; the additional coverage is an additional expense to the insurance company who will make up the money in additional charges somewhere. The “offsets” discovered as cover for his backtracking on this issue are a joke.
His second mistake was in thinking he can issue an edict to people who do not want to buy something and force them to buy it. Forgetting any religious issue, his mindset is that if he thinks you should buy something, you have to buy it. This is the issue with his health care proposal. It does, however, provide a way to make the 25% government owned General Motors more profitable. He can mandate that everyone has to buy a Chevy or he apparently thinks he can.
His second mistake was in thinking he can issue an edict to people who do not want to buy something and force them to buy it. Forgetting any religious issue, his mindset is that if he thinks you should buy something, you have to buy it. This is the issue with his health care proposal. It does, however, provide a way to make the 25% government owned General Motors more profitable. He can mandate that everyone has to buy a Chevy or he apparently thinks he can.
And back again
Ellis,
We can agree:
There certainly were many culprits; I am all for giving relief to those who were defrauded; and I too wish that being sleazy was a crime.
We can disagree:
People who are underwater because they didn't make a down payment are not entitled to government relief any more than I am because I lost equity in my home.
And the vast majority of these loans were underwritten by F/F. The banks were willing participants but were following F/F policy. The only reason these loans were approved was that F/F was buying them and the banks had no liability. The grownups involved clearly knew enough not to add these dopey loans to their portfolios - unlike those who started this sub-prime mess.
The mystery is that intelligent people are supporting a deal that encourages people on the edge stop paying; rewards people who already have stopped; has no effect on F/F loans at all; and has me wondering why I don't get $1,800 and a principal reduction.
And thank you for answering.
Bill
We can agree:
There certainly were many culprits; I am all for giving relief to those who were defrauded; and I too wish that being sleazy was a crime.
We can disagree:
People who are underwater because they didn't make a down payment are not entitled to government relief any more than I am because I lost equity in my home.
And the vast majority of these loans were underwritten by F/F. The banks were willing participants but were following F/F policy. The only reason these loans were approved was that F/F was buying them and the banks had no liability. The grownups involved clearly knew enough not to add these dopey loans to their portfolios - unlike those who started this sub-prime mess.
The mystery is that intelligent people are supporting a deal that encourages people on the edge stop paying; rewards people who already have stopped; has no effect on F/F loans at all; and has me wondering why I don't get $1,800 and a principal reduction.
And thank you for answering.
Bill
Henican responds
Thanks, Bill. As you correctly point out, there is no one cause of the housing collapse. There is no one group culpable. There is no one easy solution. Certainly government policy, bading lend proceedures and irresponsible borrowers all played a part. So what do we do? Up til now, we've done almost nothing, other than bail out the banks. Isn't it about time we begin to get needy homeowners some relief and make some of the sleaziest lenders pay? We've already begun to change government policiy, thankfully. Crafting a way of doing the first two isn't easy, for some of the reasons you cite. But there are several good reasons to do so. 1. The lenders should have known better. They're the growns-up in the lending process. 2. The housing collapse remain a huge burden on the entire economy. A foreclosed home hurts everyone in the block, everyone in the town -- and on and on. 3. Not one of these loans was written by Freddie or Fannie or any other government agency. They were approved by bankers and mortgage hypsters and other supposed professionals whose recklessness, greed or evil -- you pick it -- just about sunk our ecnomy. And so far, hardly any of them have paid at all. To me, that's the biggest piece of unfinished business here. This deal is a start but only a start.
Of course, I welcome your disagreement. Thanks for taking the time to write.
Of course, I welcome your disagreement. Thanks for taking the time to write.
Letter to Ellis Henican
It is clear that anyone who committed fraud should be prosecuted. What is not so clear is that the majority of these mortgages were to those who were "pressured, tricked, defrauded, deceived, or otherwise victimized". This is what your article and the Attorney General would have us believe but is completely unsupported. There was fraud but it is a fiction to suppose that the majority of Americans - while making the largest economic decision they will ever make - did not know what they were doing.
What is clear is that the decision to vastly increase the Government's (Fannie/Freddie/FHA) portfolio of sub-prime mortgages and the subsequent modifications to their lending guidelines (which the banks all followed) channeled money to people who never would have qualified under any sensible lending criteria. That decision was not fraud, just ill-conceived and politically motivated. But it is where it all started. (Hint: Google Andrew Cuomo HUD and Sub-prime) Greenspan didn't help but Andy, Barney, Maxine and Chris had more to do with it.
Is it cynical to question whether an Attorney General in the Administration of one of the perpetrators is chasing easy targets to direct us away from those who actually were involved?
It is also unclear why everyone who is "underwater" needs to be saved.
A fable: Two guys with the same income buy homes for exactly the same amount of money. Mr. A has saved up 25% of the purchase price and makes that as a down payment. Mr. B has no savings and takes out a mortgage for the entire purchase price. The value of both homes goes down 20% Mr A is not underwater; he just lost most of his equity and savings. Mr. B is underwater and has lost exactly nothing. But the Attorney General's, your article's and the Administration's plans all help Mr. B. The moral appears to be that saving and prudent purchase are not rewarded while overspending is.
So, investigate to find the cause. Knowing what happened will go a long way to avoiding a repeat performance, punishing fraud, identifying corrective measures, and making for better policy in the future (maybe). The easy target is just not always the right one to aim at.
What is clear is that the decision to vastly increase the Government's (Fannie/Freddie/FHA) portfolio of sub-prime mortgages and the subsequent modifications to their lending guidelines (which the banks all followed) channeled money to people who never would have qualified under any sensible lending criteria. That decision was not fraud, just ill-conceived and politically motivated. But it is where it all started. (Hint: Google Andrew Cuomo HUD and Sub-prime) Greenspan didn't help but Andy, Barney, Maxine and Chris had more to do with it.
Is it cynical to question whether an Attorney General in the Administration of one of the perpetrators is chasing easy targets to direct us away from those who actually were involved?
It is also unclear why everyone who is "underwater" needs to be saved.
A fable: Two guys with the same income buy homes for exactly the same amount of money. Mr. A has saved up 25% of the purchase price and makes that as a down payment. Mr. B has no savings and takes out a mortgage for the entire purchase price. The value of both homes goes down 20% Mr A is not underwater; he just lost most of his equity and savings. Mr. B is underwater and has lost exactly nothing. But the Attorney General's, your article's and the Administration's plans all help Mr. B. The moral appears to be that saving and prudent purchase are not rewarded while overspending is.
So, investigate to find the cause. Knowing what happened will go a long way to avoiding a repeat performance, punishing fraud, identifying corrective measures, and making for better policy in the future (maybe). The easy target is just not always the right one to aim at.
January unemployment numbers
Some perspective needs to be applied to the December numbers. Even if these numbers reflect a trend rather than the seasonal addition of people to wrap gifts - and we all hope that it is a positive trend - the reporting and exuberance needs to be tempered, especially on LI.
Several things need to included in the reporting after the obvious fact that more employment nationally is a good thing. Like,
Where are these increased jobs and what are the local policies in the places that create job growth? For example, Sheldon Silver wants to raise the minimum wage to Connecticut/Massachusetts levels. Are Connecticut and Massachusetts adding jobs or are they as stagnant as LI?
About 10,000 a day are becoming eligible to collect Social Security What is this doing to the number of people looking for jobs and the resulting unemployment rate?
The few times it is reported, the number of people that are actually working appears going down as the unemployment rate also goes down. That is certainly counter intuitive and looks like people are leaving the job market regardless of age. To what extent does that impact the rate?
What kind of jobs are being added? Jobs that require wearing a hairnet and a name tag need to be distinguished from actual head of household positions to accurately gauge what is happening
Unfortunately, the reported number of jobs - even if they are head of household jobs - is still below what is needed.
We should celebrate that the rate is going down; not that the reported rate is 8.2%.
It is good that the rate goes down. It makes people more confident, especially people who have jobs. Unfortunately, with all the other factors considered, a lower rate is a public relations issue, does not create any jobs, and it does not help anyone who is looking for a job to find one.
So, let us celebrate the good news and look forward to those who have a public voice do a better job of explaining what it means.
Several things need to included in the reporting after the obvious fact that more employment nationally is a good thing. Like,
Where are these increased jobs and what are the local policies in the places that create job growth? For example, Sheldon Silver wants to raise the minimum wage to Connecticut/Massachusetts levels. Are Connecticut and Massachusetts adding jobs or are they as stagnant as LI?
About 10,000 a day are becoming eligible to collect Social Security What is this doing to the number of people looking for jobs and the resulting unemployment rate?
The few times it is reported, the number of people that are actually working appears going down as the unemployment rate also goes down. That is certainly counter intuitive and looks like people are leaving the job market regardless of age. To what extent does that impact the rate?
What kind of jobs are being added? Jobs that require wearing a hairnet and a name tag need to be distinguished from actual head of household positions to accurately gauge what is happening
Unfortunately, the reported number of jobs - even if they are head of household jobs - is still below what is needed.
We should celebrate that the rate is going down; not that the reported rate is 8.2%.
It is good that the rate goes down. It makes people more confident, especially people who have jobs. Unfortunately, with all the other factors considered, a lower rate is a public relations issue, does not create any jobs, and it does not help anyone who is looking for a job to find one.
So, let us celebrate the good news and look forward to those who have a public voice do a better job of explaining what it means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
