Thursday, December 06, 2007

I'm not a Lockstep Republican, I'm for Fred Thompson

Last night, someone asked me if I was a Republican or a Democrat. I'm a registered Republican, but after that last few years I'm not sure what I am any more. I don't see either party standing up for traditional Republican economic values. It all looks like Socialism or Socialism-Lite.

President Bush has unveiled a plan to cap interest rates for distressed borrowers threatened with foreclosure. Hillary has upped the ante, calling for a halt to all foreclosures, period. This represents a distortion of a large part of the American free market and like others before it, will do far more harm than good.

What planet are these people from? I can understand Hillary's position, since she has never shown even the tiniest comprehension of economics, but President Bush has an MBA from Harvard. I've never bought into the canard that President Bush is a dummy. Despite his principled and, in the long run, visionary success in Iraq, when it comes to the US, he's just another gravy-ladling politician like most of the other Republicans.

One party is completely incompetent at economics and the other is utterly mendacious. Thank goodness for Fred.


Dean said...

KT, I love "mendacious". I think I first heard it in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Talk about great product placement....

Those that demogogue the "future generations" argument in whatever the subject but refuse anything but the status-quo wrt to Social Security rate a keel-hauling.

Anonymous said...

KT: Like your I have never gone along with the idea that GWB is not malevolent, merely incompetent.
There's no way you get though Harvard by being a dummy. Likewise there's no way you get to a position of power that can bog the US in a quagmire like Iraq by being a complete Rube.
And the "I know the intelligence services said that Iran had given up Nukular weapons four years ago, but, hey, are you going to believe these guys? The same ones that said Iraq had WMDs?" just smacks of folksy BS to me. He's bad, not mad.

Just as an aside, does Fred's "I don't want to be bound to your exact words" statement mean he approves of presidential signing statements (interpreting the rule of law as he sees fit, rather than as it was written and allowing the courts to determine what it means)?
Whose exact words is he bound by?
The Congress'? The Court's? The Constitution's? His own?

Anonymous said...

You do have to give him points for at least partially opening his eyes though. Based on the figure we were discussing the other day (US Current account balance -811,500,000,000) I've had another look at that. If the current population is approx 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.) minus the too young (0-14 years: 20.2% (male 31,152,050/female 29,777,438 total 60,929,488) the too old (65 years and over: 12.6% (male 15,858,477/female 21,991,195 total 37,849,672) and the non-productive [Federal Govt. Civilian Employees 2,720,688 State and local government employees 16,135,699 and armed services (1,419,212) that gives us 182,085,188 minus the unemployed (4.7% approx 9.5 million) leaving about 172.5 million to pay the deficit. That's just over $US4,700 each. To pay that in a year would mean a tax increase of over $90 a week each. I can't see him getting elected on a promise to raise taxes that much. It could, of course, be left to the next generation to pay but with the magic of compound interest the figures get really interesting.

(Please forgive the excessive bolds. I used them in preview to do my sums. If you want sources I'd be happy to post them for you. Cheers.)

Anonymous said...

Dean: I like those words 'mendacious' and 'demagogue' too. Another word worth knowing would be 'Mendicant'. See above.

K T Cat said...

Thanks, dean!

Aon, I thought Fred was just clarifying that he agreed in principle, but wanted to put it his own way. The question kind of put words in his mouth.

As for the deficit, I agree totally with you. Why are we running a deficit in a time of plenty?

Ogre said...

Fred does have some good ideas, but I'm not sold on him. I'm not sure he'll do much different. That's why I'm throwing my support behind Ron Paul -- I want to see a HUGE change in Washington!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm... 'Agreed to in principle but wanted to put his own way' sounds a lot like the rationale behind GW's signing statements. Might be worth asking him about that if you can as he did seem to avoid "be(ing) bound to your exact words" quite fluidly.

If you are talking to him perhaps you could suggest the following as a slogan?

"Fred Thompson: The lesser of 17 evils"