Althouse: So... was Santorum destroyed at last night's debate?

February 23, 2012

So... was Santorum destroyed at last night's debate?

That's what I heard.

135 comments:

Anonymous said...: No he did fine. Just a lot of spin.; 2/23/12, 12:52 PM
pauldar said...: yep - in the wife and my opinion, and, we like Rick. That was a rather bad debate for him.; 2/23/12, 12:54 PM
chickelit said...: They tried impalin' him but he's still alive. Downtown Vlad led the inquisition.; 2/23/12, 1:06 PM
Mark O said...: He destroyed himself earlier. Last night was the public viewing.; 2/23/12, 1:11 PM
Original Mike said...: Whatever happened to Downtown? Did his hate finally consume him?; 2/23/12, 1:16 PM
Dan in Philly said...: To this day I cannot believe the incredibly painful, humiliating, and public vetting these guys have to go through every 4 years was skipped by the current president, basically due to skin color. Who says racism is dead in America?; 2/23/12, 1:17 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: Willard smacked a home run, Crazy Uncle Ron blooped a Texas Leaguer, Ricky fouled out to the catcher and Newt struck out on some chin music.; 2/23/12, 1:17 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I was tired and I partly slept through it, but my impression was there was a lot of clamor, but everyone did reasonably well in their usual way.; 2/23/12, 1:19 PM
chickelit said...: @Original Mike: Let's be careful not to correctly invoke his name. He may still be lurking.; 2/23/12, 1:21 PM
michaele said...: I sure wish Romney didn't have that annoying hint of stammer. It makes his answers sound rushed and frantic.; 2/23/12, 1:22 PM
LilEvie said...: He self-identified as a "team player" in Washington.

Selling point? Not!; 2/23/12, 1:23 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: Willard is quite a good singer. I wish he'd sung a bit of America the Beautiful last night.; 2/23/12, 1:26 PM
Michael K said...: Santorum won't ignore those obvious poison fruit questions but has to go on and on to make himself look odd.; 2/23/12, 1:26 PM
Brennan said...: Rick Santorum demonstrated why Republican voters don't like Senators running for President. GOP voters know the Senate is where accept your mortality and realize you are never going to be President.; 2/23/12, 1:30 PM
Bob Ellison said...: michaele, I, too, dislike Romney's stammer. It doesn't sound like a natural speech impediment. It reminds me of the NPR style of talking-- a put-on intended to imply sincerity, but accomplishing the opposite, in my opinion.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, sounds like a naturally impeded talker, rather like George W. Bush. I don't doubt Paul's inability to speak clearly and in a linear manner.

Santorum doesn't seem to have a speech problem or put-on. He says what he means in simple fashion, and that's both his strength and his weakness.

Gingrich is really, immensely full of intense adjectives and fantastic adverbs and cliches, and the fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, he really comes across as a bag of wind.; 2/23/12, 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: As a self-identified conservative and libertarian Republican trying hard to be objective, I have learned quite a bit about myself this election.

One great irony I have seen is the great fickleness of self-identified conservatives who are not libertarian. I mean, you guys talk a good game about eternal truths and all that but you move from candidate to candidate like a young, energetic, and very ambitious prostitute.

It is a double-triple-quadruple irony that big-government-loving, earmark-loving, free-trade-hating Rick Santorum happens to be the last candidate standing in the musical chairs your bloc has decided to back.

If I were a self-identified Democrat, I'd find it all very hilarious.; 2/23/12, 1:35 PM
MadisonMan said...: If I were a self-identified Democrat, I'd find it all very hilarious.

It is.; 2/23/12, 1:37 PM
traditionalguy said...: To think Santorum was destroyed one first has to think that governing through a representative assembly called Congress is the evil we need to end. And silly Santorum he admitted all night that he once did that job.

That thinking, attributed falsely here to Tea Partists, is the pure Statism of a tyrant.

Neither Romney nor Paul knows the first thing about Tea Party anger and goals for taking and using a majority of the 535 Congressional seats needed to operate our Constitutional Republic.

Romney and Paul also agreed that they can fool anybody with their WWF fakes for real politics.; 2/23/12, 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Neither Romney nor Paul knows the first thing about Tea Party anger

So, Trad, your solution to quelling all this Tea Party anger is to have more billions and trillions in earmarks, and further stall the economy by abating free trade, and rehash a bunch of culture arguments?

Really? That's the Tea Party? That's its anger?

You are ferociously wrong. It's sad. Madison Man rightly finds it hilarious.; 2/23/12, 1:43 PM
Wince said...: MESA, Ariz. — Rick Santorum suspects something is up between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.; 2/23/12, 1:44 PM
MadisonMan said...: Madison Man rightly finds it hilarious.

The only non-hilarious part, and it's a huge non-hilarious part, is what it'll do to the country.

Laughing beats crying, I suppose.; 2/23/12, 1:48 PM
Love said...: I certaily hope not.

If there's anything Democrats like myself are looking forward to, it's Ricky getting the nod.

We feel a candidate running on a platform based in the denial of evolution, no sex unless you're trying to have a kid, no contraceptives, women having no choice regarding their own bodies, and of course defending America from Satan...is p-e-r-f-e-c-t.

GO RICKY!!!!; 2/23/12, 1:52 PM
Tank said...: I look at it alot like Seven.

There are really no candidates running with any chance of winning that give me any reason to hope, or think we will be on the right track next term.

That's why ...

DEAD COUNTRY .....; 2/23/12, 1:56 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Love, name that candidate!; 2/23/12, 1:57 PM
traditionalguy said...: Seven...The severe conservative mask of Mitt Romney is still having trouble looking authentic. It came up against Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, and now Santorum.

His tactic has been to outflank each one claiming that he is more authentic then they are.

But he is wrong to assume Conservatives want to dissolve Congress and have King Mitt govern by himself, or that they are so stupid not to notice that is where his last outflanking has taken him.

We can just assume he lies to us and feel reassured that he will govern well without a Congress...like he promises to do.

That silly rabbit Santorum should have known that it would not be that easy.; 2/23/12, 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: The part I find hilarious is that Trad is so, so wrong about what the Tea Party is.

Listen to your Seven Machos. All of you. I am only going to have this discourse once.

1. Remember back during the Iraq War when the left was trumpeting that people were against the war? Remember that? Well, that's not what the data showed. The data showed that some people were for the war, yes, and some against it. But the plurality was for winning the war instead of losing. We weren't winning, so people felt they had to answer the lame survey questions as against the war.

2. Remember the financial meltdown -- the one we still are stuck in? Well, the Tea Party was a response to it, against it. That's all it was. That's all it is. People said they wanted a better economy with better rules and better middle class outcomes.

3. Now, here's the kicker. Here's the part where you are going to say: Holy fucking shit! Seven Machos you have brilliant insight. That plurality of people who just wanted to win in Iraq and the Tea Party people are the same group of people. There's nothing fancy. There's no religion. There's no holistic theory. It's just a pragmatic group response by middle-of-the-road people with vague ideas.

Class dismissed.; 2/23/12, 1:58 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: If we don't want Newt to come back.. like a zombie.. we need to keep Santorum on life support.

A silver lining of sorts is that whoever survives will have little left for Obama to chew on.

Hopefully.

However, it starting to look like Obama is going to run against a phantom puritan.. no matter who the candidate.

Obama is going to run against the republican party stereotype.

The thing of it is that the fear (best exemplified here by the kid with the crooked hat) doesn't match today's political realities.

No republican is saying we are going to go back to Dont ask dont tell.. nor promising to stop states from alowing people of the same sex to marry.. and they probably could not even if they tried.. We are politically headed in the opposite direction.

You know how when you sue.. I believe you have to show how you been injured?.. you have to show how you been harmed.

Where are the injured, contraception deprived, republican tortured women?

Obama has made up out of whole cloth.; 2/23/12, 1:59 PM
Love said...: For you deficit/debt hawks who love to whine:

*The national debt is likely to balloon under tax policies championed by three of the four major Republican candidates for president, according to an independent analysis of tax and spending proposals so far offered by the candidates.

The lone exception is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who would pair a big reduction in tax rates with even bigger cuts in government services, slicing about $2 trillion from future borrowing.

According to the report — set for release Thursday by U.S. Budget Watch, a project of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and former House speaker Newt Gingrich would do the most damage to the nation’s finances, offering tax and spending policies likely to require trillions of dollars in fresh borrowing.

Both men have proposed to sharply cut taxes but have not identified spending cuts sufficient to make up for the lost cash, the report said. By 2021, the debt would rise by about $4.5 trillion under Santorum’s policies and by about $7 trillion under those advocated by Gingrich, pushing the portion of the debt held by outside investors to well over 100 percent of the nation’s economy.

The red ink would gush less heavily under former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the report said — at least under earlier Romney proposals that paired $1.35 trillion in tax cuts with $1.2 trillion in spending reductions and would leave the debt rising on a trajectory that closely tracks current policies.

But that probably changed Wednesday, when Romney tacked to the right and proposed to cut federal income tax rates by an additional 20 percent for all earners — an idea that could easily slash federal revenues by another $3.5 trillion over the next decade, said Edward Kleinbard, a University of Southern California law professor and former chief tax analyst for Congress.

In a late-night addendum Wednesday, analysts for U.S. Budget Watch set a slightly lower price for the new tax provisions, suggesting that Romney’s entire budget framework would add about $2.6 trillion to the debt by 2021.; 2/23/12, 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: But he is wrong to assume Conservatives want to dissolve Congress and have King Mitt govern by himself

This is just stupid. You've lost it, dude. You've gone tinfoil. Get hold of yourself. Get some rest. Come back when you are sane.; 2/23/12, 2:00 PM
Love said...: Lem - "Obama is going to run against the republican party stereotype."

You only way you can do so is...if there is a sterotype.

And of course, there is.

So is you were President Obama's campaign manager...what would YOU suggest?; 2/23/12, 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: So is you were President Obama's campaign manager...what would YOU suggest?

Well, Obama certainly can't run on his awful record as president. So that's out.; 2/23/12, 2:03 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Whatever happened to Downtown? Did his hate finally consume him?.."

Thailand can be a rough place.

Then again AndyR seems to be filling his shoes rather well.; 2/23/12, 2:08 PM
Writ Small said...: When I watched the debate, I didn't think Santorum did all that poorly. I thought his answers on all his earmarking and dealmaking and vote regretting was mostly explainable.

The problem for Rick is that pragmatists who could overlook Rick's lack of political purity are already mostly supporting Romney.; 2/23/12, 2:09 PM
Saint Croix said...: Santorum is being portrayed as the Man Who Wants You To Have Kids.

Ooo, scary!

The Obama administration is way, way more vulnerable on sexual liberty than Rick Santorum.

For instance, Obama's science czar is John Holdren.

Don't tell me that Republicans lose on this stuff. Obama has people in his administration that are batshit crazy.; 2/23/12, 2:15 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Well, Obama certainly can't run on his awful record as president. So that's out..."

Bambi is where Bush was in 2004, supposedly on the ropes and a one term President.

So the Democrats snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and nominated Lurch and his scumbag sidekick. Result: Bush victory.

Obama can only hope that Santorum or Newt get the nomination so he can continue his goddamn America tour for another four years.; 2/23/12, 2:19 PM
traditionalguy said...: Seven...See, I'm real. Are you turning to Romney's best anti-Newt tactics by calling me zany for making a valid point?

Are you implying that I should just hope Mitt lets Congress stay in session (unlike Rick Perry who boldly promised to send it home,) and expect that that a President Romney will proceed to use his touted line item veto on Congressional spending? But then he would also have to disband the Supreme Court.

Or are you determined that Romney does not mean anything by his bold attack on separation of powers when he offers the voters the option of doing away with Congressional spending by voting for him?; 2/23/12, 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Trad -- You don't understand the Constitution at all. The President cannot dismiss the Congress or the Supreme Court. There is simply no way that event could happen. We are not living in England in 1610.

You are grossly deluded or you are grossly misunderstanding some statement. It is very sad.; 2/23/12, 2:33 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: So is you were President Obama's campaign manager...what would YOU suggest?

You cant run on your record, you lost the men.. most if not all the white males.. that leaves you with the women.. How can we manipulate them into voting for you?

Republicans are going to take you back to the middle ages..

Meantime (If I can go back to being myself) the country speedsup in decline.. with no viable economic policy.. no discernible energy policy.. other than stifling our own.. and no foreign policy.; 2/23/12, 2:51 PM
wild chicken said...: I didn't have a problem with Santorum's mea culpa. But despite what people like to say - that they appreciate a sincere apology - as soon as a guy does that, he's a fucking loser.

Never say you're sorry. Spin it some other way, just don't apologize.; 2/23/12, 2:56 PM
edutcher said...: Santorum got nailed in the middle of the debate to the point where he couldn't say anything that wasn't jammed back down his throat.

Milton did a lot, but by no means all of it.

As I said last night, I think he(Santroum)'s already peaked, but I expect a swoon after last night.

Seven Machos said...

As a self-identified conservative and libertarian Republican trying hard to be objective, I have learned quite a bit about myself this election.

It is a double-triple-quadruple irony that big-government-loving, earmark-loving, free-trade-hating Rick Santorum happens to be the last candidate standing

No, some have forgotten that the name of the game is best against GodZero. They've think it's Anybody But Milton.

But, yeah, the reason Santorum is there is because anybody with anything to offer has already been passed over and the ABM crowd can't let go.; 2/23/12, 3:00 PM
gadfly said...: TPM thinks Ricky Bobby bit the bullet last night. I do not disagree with the left-wingers in this particular instance.

As for the winner, Rush, the Washington Examiner and American Spectator believe that Newt won. The Spectator article is entitled "The Mittens Come Off in Mesa" with a subtitle, "Only to reveal the knuckles of a RINO turned 'severely conservative.'"; 2/23/12, 3:01 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Republicans are going to take you back to the middle ages...."

Which is kind of funny considering that's exactly where leftwing environmental policies will take us.; 2/23/12, 3:07 PM
Love said...: I notice none of the deficit/debt whiners have anything to say about my previous posting. (I thought this was a MAJOR element of your argument against President Obama???)

Let's try it again:

*The national debt is likely to balloon under tax policies championed by three of the four major Republican candidates for president, according to an independent analysis of tax and spending proposals so far offered by the candidates.

The lone exception is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who would pair a big reduction in tax rates with even bigger cuts in government services, slicing about $2 trillion from future borrowing.

According to the report — set for release Thursday by U.S. Budget Watch, a project of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and former House speaker Newt Gingrich would do the most damage to the nation’s finances, offering tax and spending policies likely to require trillions of dollars in fresh borrowing.

Both men have proposed to sharply cut taxes but have not identified spending cuts sufficient to make up for the lost cash, the report said. By 2021, the debt would rise by about $4.5 trillion under Santorum’s policies and by about $7 trillion under those advocated by Gingrich, pushing the portion of the debt held by outside investors to well over 100 percent of the nation’s economy.

The red ink would gush less heavily under former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the report said — at least under earlier Romney proposals that paired $1.35 trillion in tax cuts with $1.2 trillion in spending reductions and would leave the debt rising on a trajectory that closely tracks current policies.

But that probably changed Wednesday, when Romney tacked to the right and proposed to cut federal income tax rates by an additional 20 percent for all earners — an idea that could easily slash federal revenues by another $3.5 trillion over the next decade, said Edward Kleinbard, a University of Southern California law professor and former chief tax analyst for Congress.

In a late-night addendum Wednesday, analysts for U.S. Budget Watch set a slightly lower price for the new tax provisions, suggesting that Romney’s entire budget framework would add about $2.6 trillion to the debt by 2021.; 2/23/12, 3:09 PM
Love said...: Hoosier - "leftwing environmental policies" will take us back to the middle ages?

I can understand a complaint relating to the possible "costs" of protecting our own environment, but where does that relate to the middle ages?; 2/23/12, 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Love -- I don't think anybody gives a shit about your posts. They are uninteresting drivel.

Good writing is writing that is easily understood. Copying and pasting is stupid.

If you want any more lessons, you'll have to pay.; 2/23/12, 3:11 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I notice none of the deficit/debt whiners have anything to say about my previous posting.

Because the poster that counts asked us not to confuse or clutter the flow of conversation.. changing the subject does that love ;); 2/23/12, 3:14 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... I can understand a complaint relating to the possible "costs" of protecting our own environment, but where does that relate to the middle ages?.."

Ok maybe I was too drastic in my comparison. More like mid-19th century.; 2/23/12, 3:15 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I heard some Idiot Lady on the radio this morning. She claimed to represent the Tea Party and said the Tea Party thinkers were backing Santorum because they were in sync on cultural ideas.; 2/23/12, 3:17 PM
Wince said...: So... was Santorum destroyed at last night's debate?

Whatever you say about Santorum, don't say: "Rectum? Damn near killed 'em".; 2/23/12, 3:17 PM
Anonymous said...: These people speaking for the Tea Party remind me of the famous, probably apocryphal quote:

Where are my people? I must find them. I am their leader!; 2/23/12, 3:20 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... I notice none of the deficit/debt whiners have anything to say about my previous posting..."

Why? None of those guys are President. The current one that half the country which took leave of its senses and voted for, promised to reduce the deficit and instead has run three straight years of trillion dollars plus deficits.

Then for hypocrites that's no problem cause he's your guy.; 2/23/12, 3:21 PM
MadisonMan said...: Appropriating a M*A*S*H quote is pertinent here.

It was BUILT broken!

Where It is Santorum, not the new vascular clamp.; 2/23/12, 3:24 PM
Love said...: Lem - "Because the poster that counts asked us not to confuse or clutter the flow of conversation.. changing the subject does that love ;)"

The topic is the debate and how candidates fared, especially Ricky.

I would assume that their stand regarding the deficit/debt would be relevant to those who actually understand why they're supporting or voting for someone.

And by the way, there are plenty of comments posted that are off topic.

If you can't provide a reasonable or objective counter to my comments, don't try to hide behind Meade's moderation guildelines.

Just admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about.; 2/23/12, 3:30 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: Ok maybe I was too drastic in my comparison. More like mid-19th century.

Ah, yes, the golden age of electric cars and solar energy!; 2/23/12, 3:33 PM
Love said...: Hoosier - "Why? None of those guys are President."

But they want to be President, don't they?

And if what they propose will increase the deficit/debt...isn't that relevant to their arguments against President Obama?

C'mon...I realize this is an Obama hatefest, but even you and others have to, from time to time, actually examine what is being proposed by your own candidates.

You can't honestly argue that President Obama is burying us in debt, while at the same time not acknowledging that your own candidates offer up solutions that will further the problem.

It makes you look foolish.; 2/23/12, 3:34 PM
traditionalguy said...: Seven ...You are beautiful. You did get my point that Romney only won the debate by pretending that he would do clearly impossible things.

Now, on to who is electable.

Romney is Obama's trap waiting to be sprung. As the economic number get faked as better, that smiling Presidential image who loves the poor so much and killed BenLaden will brush Romney off Wall Street Mitt who is not needed like he would a fly.; 2/23/12, 3:43 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... You can't honestly argue that President Obama is burying us in debt,.."

Sure I can cause he is. Heck, another four years of him driving us toward the abyss and we'll be $20 trillion in debt and that's not counting what we owe soc security and Medicare beneficiaries.

Then again he did listen to years of Goddam America sermons from his spiritual advisor so perhaps he's just following what he thinks is Gods word.; 2/23/12, 3:43 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: Excuse me but Reagan proved deficits don't matter!; 2/23/12, 3:48 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Oh get off it. Obama is not a clever trap springer -he is a dopey community organizer who does not even comprehend what motivates the average American to get out of bed and go to work in the morning.

But you'll vote for him again anyway.; 2/23/12, 3:49 PM
Love said...: Hoosier - You left this last part of my ststement out: "while at the same time not acknowledging that your own candidates offer up solutions that will further the problem."

That is dishonest and makes you look like a fool.

And by the way, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion.

The day Bush walked, the debt was at 10.7 trillion...and he left behind the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

President Obama is dealing with it.; 2/23/12, 3:51 PM
Love said...: Over three years into President Obama's tenure and you still get Hoosier and Lynch and others whining about what church he went to or that he was a community organizer.

And you wonder why the GOP is in trouble?

President Obama will be re-elected.; 2/23/12, 3:54 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: President Obama will be re-elected.

No. Willard cannot be defeated.; 2/23/12, 3:55 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @seven machos,
Your understanding of the tea party is dead wrong.
It wasn't in reaction to the financial meltdown...it was in reaction to the center-left/Keynesian response to the financial meltdown:
Stop spending! And:
Taxed enough already!

That's it.

There is not one candidate still standing that demonstrates they get that.

Santorum is the closest, because he at least comes across as sincere, and both willing and able to learn from his past mistakes and work with Congress to enact the mandate for cutting spending w/o raising taxes.; 2/23/12, 3:56 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @seven machos,
Your understanding of the tea party is dead wrong.
It wasn't in reaction to the financial meltdown...it was in reaction to the center-left/Keynesian response to the financial meltdown:
Stop spending! And:
Taxed enough already!

That's it.

There is not one candidate still standing that demonstrates they get that.

Santorum is the closest, because he at least comes across as sincere, and both willing and able to learn from his past mistakes and work with Congress to enact the mandate for cutting spending w/o raising taxes.; 2/23/12, 3:57 PM
traditionalguy said...: Actually the deficits do not matter so long as the USA's Empire remains solvent and is expanding.

The crisis of debt is the day that our shrinking Empire has a capital call from China, Russia and India payable in gold or oil. So devaluing of dollars does matter big time.

BTW, the price of oil is not going up. The amount of oil that a dollar buys is going down.; 2/23/12, 4:01 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Nathan:

You will vote for Santorum who went to DC from Pittsburgh, lost his Senate seat but stayed in DC where he earns high six figures every year as a high powered lobbyist/alleged pundit?

Because you think he will change and turn off the gushers of money that the fed govt wastes every year?; 2/23/12, 4:04 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Mitt's biggest problem is that he has made only one thing clear:
He really, really, really wants to be President for no clear reason.
It obviously isn't that he wants to bring tea party sensibilities to the Presidency. He can't even begin to articulate conservative principles in a convincing manner. And when his past mistakes or conservative heresies are brought up, his response is to say that everyone else is worse. That doesn't sound like contrition or commitment to conservative or tea party principles to me at all.
Since he can't articulate why he wants to be POTUS at all convincingly, the Mormon issue fills in the blanks in many peoples minds. Fair or not...Romney has only himself to blame for not being able to explain why he wants to be President so bad.

But I don't care. No matter who wins the nomination, he'll defeat Obama. All the numbers are pointed in the wrong direction. He's getting a pass because the GOP primary is going on and he has the media in his pocket,

But once the focus turns to Obama vs ?, and once the congressional races pick up and democrats run away fom Obama and his record, people will nitice and Obama will have to answer some questions.

By october, the press will be turning on Obama to try to save the liberal/democrat brand.; 2/23/12, 4:05 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Here is the greatest argument against a Santorum candidacy:

Althouse & Meade would not vote for him but would vote for Romney. Meade & Althouse are the kind of gettable votes the Repubs forsake by nominating extremists like Santorum.; 2/23/12, 4:07 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "...by the way, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion.

The day Bush walked, the debt was at 10.7 trillion...and he left behind the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

President Obama is dealing with it...."

Oh he sure is! He added more to the debt in 3 years than W did in 8!!!

I guess that's what you guys call progress.; 2/23/12, 4:14 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Over three years into President Obama's tenure and you still get Hoosier and Lynch and others whining about what church he went to or that he was a community organizer..."

Oh I'm not whining about it. Just reminding folks what they voted for.

"...President Obama will be re-elected..."

It's possible. I never discount the fact that people can exhibit self desructive behavior.; 2/23/12, 4:19 PM
D. B. Light said...: I agree with Ann, they all did pretty well last night. Unlike most of the people on this board I found Rick's answers reassuring -- showing that he takes the task of governing seriously. It's easy to pontificate if you are sitting on the sidelines, but real governance requires responsible compromise.; 2/23/12, 4:19 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... To this day I cannot believe the incredibly painful, humiliating, and public vetting these guys have to go through every 4 years was skipped by the current president, basically due to skin color..."

Now now, Obambi was vetted and vetted well. We all knew about his Rezko deals, his complete lack of resume, his America hating spiritual advisor, his voting present, but America decided to take into account his complete lack of qualifications and give him the job anyway.

This is what democracy looks like.; 2/23/12, 4:32 PM
Love said...: Hoosier - You really need to read up on little things like when the recession began.

It was in December of 2007, 13 months BEFORE President Obama took office.

I realize you like to post silly unsubstantiated right wing drivel over and over again, as if that will change the facts of the matter, but I'm sorry.

The President inherited one hell of a mess, and the economic indicators over the past year support the fact that things are indeed improving.

Hating someone doesn't mean much...it just makes you look stupid and petty.; 2/23/12, 4:35 PM
Love said...: AJ Lynch said..."Here is the greatest argument against a Santorum candidacy:
Althouse & Meade would not vote for him but would vote for Romney. Meade & Althouse are the kind of gettable votes the Repubs forsake by nominating extremists like Santorum."

Meade and Althouse will vote for whoever is running against President Obama.

And you know it.; 2/23/12, 4:36 PM
edutcher said...: EDH said...

MESA, Ariz. — Rick Santorum suspects something is up between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Possibly because Paul has laid off Milton - and no one else - and his son is a possible Milton running mate.

That would be a match up a lot of people might like - The Blonde, for example, can't stand Milton, but likes Rand Paul.

WV "armated" What Titus said after Meadhouse's wedding night.; 2/23/12, 4:36 PM
Love said...: D.B. Light - "but real governance requires responsible compromise"

You're actually running Ricky Santorum and "compromise" into one statement?

That's a hoot.; 2/23/12, 4:37 PM
chickelit said...: Althouse & Meade would not vote for him but would vote for Romney.

Is the corollary that Meade and Althouse would vote for Obama if Santorum is the nominee?; 2/23/12, 4:39 PM
Steve Koch said...: Santorum would probably not win the prez election because the country mostly does not want a social conservative. In addition, he has no experience as a manager, not having been a governor or even a mayor. He is not credible as a fiscal conservative and working as a lobbyist for several years is a huge negative.

Santorum is preferable to Newt because he does not have Newt's character and personality issues.

It is interesting that Mitt and Ron Paul have teamed up. Maybe some of Paul's better ideas (and none of the crazy ones) will rub off on Mitt. It has really been disappointing that Mitt has not connected better with the Tea Party. Also very disappointed that Mitt is OK with the bailouts/stimulus and is against slashing federal spending. Mitt is the least worst GOP prez candidate so far but he does not make it easy for a conservative to like a lot of his policies.

TradGuy, are you suggesting that inflation is the solution to our problems? That would be a huge mistake. Getting our spending in order by shrinking the federal government is the way to go and is a conservative approach. The GOP has to be the party of the constitution and limited federal government.

Paul Ryan said that the CBO said that if we don't get our budget in control, our economy will cease to function in 15 years. Hammering on this point should persuade some young people to vote GOP (since they will be stuck with the bills and ruined economy) or at least stay home and not vote for Obama.; 2/23/12, 4:40 PM
MadisonMan said...: Rick Santorum suspects

Great. We sure need a paranoid in the Oval Office.; 2/23/12, 4:42 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @AJ,
I'd vote for a syphilitic camel over the miserable failure that is the POTUS right now.

But as long as we get a Republican in the White House, it is Congress that matters the most right now. We need them to slash spending w/o raising taxes, and reform/slash entitlements. Whichever GOPer is in the White House, they'll sign the bills into law.; 2/23/12, 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: The crisis of debt is the day that our shrinking Empire has a capital call from China, Russia and India payable in gold or oil. So devaluing of dollars does matter big time.

Trad, you've become a raving loon.

1. No one can make a capital call on sovereign debt. There are bonds that are paid or not. You have no idea what you are talking about.

2. Devaluing currency is something every nation wants. Show me the nation or group of nations that wants a high currency value. As we speak, China, Japan, and Switzerland are putting massive resources into keeping their currencies valued low -- and it's a losing battle. Again, you are clueless.

I feel bad for you.; 2/23/12, 4:44 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @Love,

Of course their plans will temporarily raise the deficit.

But Congress is the one that actually writes the budgets, Presidents only propose.

I don't care if deficits temporarily rise:

Cut taxes and regulations, and slash spending to the bone. We'll have temporary deficits, but if we cut enough spending and stupid executive regulations put in place by The Idiot Currently in the White House, we'll get the economy going and grow our way out of the deficit. Continue to slash spending, and we'll end up with a surplus. Keep it up for 8 years, and we could see significant amounts of federal debt cut.

It is really, really hypocritical for you talk about deficits, though: you did zero to stop the worst voluntary deficit creator this nation has ever seen: Obama the Loser. But your hypocrisy in defense of the Hypocrite in Chief is understandable: par for the course for a liberal/progressive/Democrat; 2/23/12, 4:47 PM
garage mahal said...: Paul Ryan said that the CBO said that if we don't get our budget in control, our economy will cease to function in 15 years.

What the hell does Paul Ryan know? He voted for all the crap that's added to the debt he's talking about.; 2/23/12, 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Nathan -- You also don't have any clue if you believe that Santorum will or even claims he will cut government spending. Santorum is for big government. Period.; 2/23/12, 4:48 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @Love,
If anyone needs to learn from history, it's you.

The recession began due to Democrat policies enacted by the Democrat majorities in the House and the Senate. Which were voted for by Sen. Obama.

Then he made things worse as President by doubling down on stupid.

Learn from history. Stop being such a tool for the idiot liberal Democrats.; 2/23/12, 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't know why you people are paying attention to Love. He's obviously a troll. He's beneath the discussion here.; 2/23/12, 4:50 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: I never discount the fact that people can exhibit self desructive behavior.

Correct! Bush was a two term president!; 2/23/12, 4:51 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @Seven Machos,
You think a GOP President matters more for cutting spending than a GOP Congress?!?!

Really?

All that matters is we get the Miserable Failure out of office.

I'll gladly vote for Mitt to get that done.

I'd even vote for Newt.

Ron "Batshit Crazy" Paul would make me pause, but I'd still probably pull the lever for him. Luckily we won't have to find out.

I'm sure Santorum won't make things worse. There are things I don't like about him. There are things I don't like about Romney. Romney hasn't done jack to repudiate his past high-spending ways. Santorum at least demonstrates he'll listen and consider.

But I'm absolutely agnostic on which one should win the nomination.

Interestingly, even if I did care, my preferences cannot affect the outcome, thanks to our idiotic primary system.; 2/23/12, 4:55 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: I don't care if deficits temporarily rise

That explains the 8 years of George Bush.; 2/23/12, 4:55 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: All that matters is we get the Miserable Failure out of office.

Oh, you really need to catch up on the news. Miserable Failure left office in January 2009. Stupid term limits!

Our job now is to get the black communist Muslim out of office.; 2/23/12, 4:58 PM
hopechange said...: For the brave. For the intellectually curious. For the independent-minded. For the cutting-edge visionary.

Isn't that the Althouse universe?

Newt HIGHLIGHTS from the Arizona debate: http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/2012/02/newt-gingrichs-arizona-cnn-debate.html; 2/23/12, 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: You think a GOP President matters more for cutting spending than a GOP Congress?

I never said this and your inferences to this conclusion must have been extraordinary. My point is merely that if you want a president seeking to cut spending, it's most certainly not Santorum.

I'm sure Santorum won't make things worse.

Santorum won't get elected. So, you are right, but for the wrong reasons. Santorum will be obliterated by Obama. And, as I have said before, if Santorum is the nominee (or any candidate still running but Romney) it will only prove that Obama is favored by God. How else to explain the run of luck Obama has had in opposing candidates despite his lack of resume?; 2/23/12, 5:01 PM
MadisonMan said...: I previously would have said Santorum has as much chance being elected as Ryan Braun has winning his appeal.

I guess I need a new statement.; 2/23/12, 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Santorum has as much chance being elected as the Brewers have of re-signing Prince Fielder.; 2/23/12, 5:06 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... The President inherited one hell of a mess.."

Actually he didn't. He actively campaigned and asked for the job.

Instead of turning things around he added another five trillion to the debt and we watched unemployment increase despite his stimulus bill.; 2/23/12, 5:21 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Hoosier:

How was Bush's victory in 2004 bad for the Democrats?

Just imagine if Kerry had been in office when it all fell apart in 2008?

Meanwhile, what awful terrible thing was forestalled by Bush's victory?; 2/23/12, 5:21 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... What the hell does Paul Ryan know?.."

Same thing Geithner knows cause he's seen the numbers too.; 2/23/12, 5:23 PM
Alex said...: Good, one less Christofascist.; 2/23/12, 5:23 PM
garage mahal said...: Instead of turning things around he added another five trillion to the debt and we watched unemployment increase despite his stimulus bill.

Wow. That sounds like a lot.

Do you have an itemized list of that 5 trillion? I'm sure it's readily available on the nets.; 2/23/12, 5:28 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... How was Bush's victory in 2004 bad for the Democrats?.."

Why wouldn't it be? Parties look at the here and now, not what might happen 4 years from now. As far as they knew had Lurch won in 04 he would coast in 08. The economy was humming back then and the real discontent was the war. In the end, good economy trumps unpopular war.

Obama has bad economy and unpopular war. We shall see.; 2/23/12, 5:29 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Do you have an itemized list of that 5 trillion? I'm sure it's readily available on the nets..."

I forgot, you don't know what the national debt is.; 2/23/12, 5:32 PM
garage mahal said...: I forgot, you don't know what the national debt is.

Well you didn't come up with that 5 trillion on your own did you? School me. Show me the 5 trillion Obama added.; 2/23/12, 5:34 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Hoosier:

My point wasn't that in 2004, one could foresee the calamity in 2008. I'm saying, from where we stand now, was Bush's victory in 2004 bad for the Dems? If so, how?; 2/23/12, 5:39 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: ".. Well you didn't come up with that 5 trillion on your own did you? School me. Show me the 5 trillion Obama added..."

When Obama came into office the debt was $10 trillion and change. It's now $15 trillion.

Do the math and feel free to use a calculator.; 2/23/12, 5:44 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... I'm saying, from where we stand now, was Bush's victory in 2004 bad for the Dems?..'

No of course not. I'm sure after 9/11 Algore probably thanked Gaia he lost his supreme court case.; 2/23/12, 5:49 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @I Heart Willard,

I see you know how to repeat liberal lies as if they were truth.

W was a very good President. A great President in many ways; a little too moderate in spending.

'Tis a pity your brain and free will have rotted so far you can't see the truth.

Even worse is that you can't see that the only things you could possibly complain about W for, Obama doubled down on and made far worse, or did far worse. It must be sad going through life so clueless of the real world.

The two worst Presidents in the history of the US have been within my lifetime: Carter and Obama.
FDR comes close, but I wasn't born yet.; 2/23/12, 6:06 PM
garage mahal said...: When Obama came into office the debt was $10 trillion and change. It's now $15 trillion.

So just explain real briefly how Obama "added" 5 trillion to that debt. Isn't it important to find out what that 5 trillion entailed? You seem to have those numbers real handy, why not show us?; 2/23/12, 6:21 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Isn't it important to find out what that 5 trillion entailed?.."

Is it? Oh I forgot, runaway spending under a Democrat is ok.; 2/23/12, 6:46 PM
Steve Koch said...: Garage,

Paul was just reporting what the CBO (the non partisan and respected congressional budget office) projected.; 2/23/12, 6:51 PM
garage mahal said...: Is it? Oh I forgot, runaway spending under a Democrat is ok.

No I asked you show how you came up with that 5 trillion number. I will assume you cannot. Sounds good though!; 2/23/12, 7:27 PM
Steve Koch said...: It is interesting that most of the debate here at Althouse is between GOP voters about what direction the GOP should go. There is virtually no debate by the dems about what direction they should go.

Obviously there is not much need for the dems to debate which candidate to select since the incumbent is a dem but you would think there would be more disagreement about policy direction.

Part of the reason might be that the GOP is more of a bottom up political party and the dems are structured as a top down political party.; 2/23/12, 7:31 PM
Synova said...: It's possible I'm misremembering, but it seems to me that both George W., and Clinton won their respective primaries by mostly being under the radar for most of it. Now, that may be partly because both ran and won in a year when there wasn't an incumbent, so all the crazy was happening in tandem.; 2/23/12, 7:37 PM
Synova said...: "Isn't it important to find out what that 5 trillion entailed?"

At some point, probably at the point we're talking "trillions", no, it isn't important.

Unless the trillion has it's own retirement "entailed", it is simply debt. And good cause or folly makes no difference at all.; 2/23/12, 7:41 PM
Steve Koch said...: %5 trillion in deficits on Obama's 1st three years sounds about right. That would average out to a bit under $1.7 trillion deficit per year. I took a quick look at Heritage's budget book. Their estimate for the deficit in 2011 was spending of $3.7 trillion, revenues of %2.15 trillion for a deficit of $1.62 trillion. Three years of that would add up to $4.86 trillion.

$5 trillion of deficits in the Obama regime sounds about right.; 2/23/12, 7:47 PM
traditionalguy said...: @ Steve Koch...Short of a return to the gold standard, a 3% inflation rate would be normal as an economy expands.

The WWII War Bond Sales permitted huge extra Government spending for a time because we financed the debt.

Our new era depends upon the new industrial countries of China and India to finance that debt for us. The Real Estate Bubble our Government started in 1999 brought in that foreign finance of our wars for 8 years.

Now we sit on the edge of a dollar value cliff and hope for world inertia to save us from a great fall.; 2/23/12, 7:54 PM
Cedarford said...: Seven Machos said...
These people speaking for the Tea Party remind me of the famous, probably apocryphal quote:

"Where are my people? I must find them. I am their leader!"
==============
That was at one time or another the claim of Michelle Bachmann, who said she was the Queen of the Tea Party.
Which was challenged by the right wing Goddess Sarah Palin, who said she was the Queen.

People at Tea Party rallies in 2010, when asked that, said they disliked Palin, thought she was unfit to be President....and didn't know who Michelle Bachmann was.; 2/23/12, 8:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Trad -- Do you understand how currencies work. Currencies can only be devalued against...other currencies.

Which ones are we on the precipice with? Is it the Euro, which is propped up biweekly these days? Is it the currencies of India and China? What would happen that is bad exactly if our currencies went down against the currencies of India and China?; 2/23/12, 8:39 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: CL:

Althouse would vote for Obama vs Saintorum; Meade would probably sit out the election.; 2/23/12, 8:51 PM
Revenant said...: Currencies can only be devalued against...other currencies.

So the world's poverty problems could be solved with a simple two-step process:

1. Establish the dollar as the world's sole currency.

2. Print $7,000,000,000,000,000,000 and give $1 billion to each man, woman, and child on Earth.

There would be no risk of this devaluing the dollar, since there wouldn't be another currency for it to be devalued against.; 2/23/12, 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Rev -- If the U.S. currency goes down in value, it makes our goods and services easier to sell in other countries and imported goods and services more expensive. It's a wash, at worst.

If maintaining an expensive currency is a wise thing, then the treasury departments of every country are full of idiots.

I expect far better from you.; 2/23/12, 9:10 PM
Carol_Herman said...: What do you mean by "destroyed?" The ride goes in circles.

Hasn't done one good thing for republicans, in general. By why bother to win in 2012?

McCain didn't win in 2008. And, he still can't believe the Black man won. So, the GOP will try, again.

Losers all.

And, so far? It hasn't cost Obama one thin dime to stay on top.

This is not an endorsement!

Maybe, I'll just join all of those who decide not to vote at all?; 2/23/12, 10:58 PM
David R. Graham said...: This 7M's avatar recalls "the masked bandit" in My Little Chickadee. But her rhetoric recalls a Fifth Column operator or espionage/subversion mole. Mata Hare? Her continuous recourse to personal abuse recalls Dem/MMFA protocol/tactic. She does not inspire feelings of safety.

On "debates:" I do not bother about them because they are controlled by enemies of the "debaters."

The "debaters" insult themselves, their parents, their spouses and their children "debating" so. 7M loves that they do.; 2/24/12, 12:01 AM
Anonymous said...: David -- You have proven yourself to be a loon here in the past. Your invective that I am some kind of leftist agitator is more of the same (but far be it from you, of course, to engage in "personal abuse").

Today, with your hilarious comments about my awesome Lucha Libre mask, you show yourself to be a grossly provincial rube as well.; 2/24/12, 12:08 AM
Revenant said...: Rev -- If the U.S. currency goes down in value, it makes our goods and services easier to sell in other countries and imported goods and services more expensive.

That statement is true, but completely unrelated to my comment.; 2/24/12, 12:16 AM
David R. Graham said...: "Maybe, I'll just join all of those who decide not to vote at all?"

Agreed. The electorate is as undiscriminating as possible. Comments here reflect that. Very few grasp that the system is broken by corruption. So, let the liar be elected by fraud and stupidity again.

When the electorate realizes the system is broken by corruption, they will rebuild. Not before. A lot of fat asses need deflating. Let the liar deflate them. He's good at that, loves doing it, leave him to it. Give his supports what they want. Let them to their impulses. Fan them even. Many will die, literally, but so what!? Many more will be drugged into oblivion, so what!?

Let the weed grow tall and strong. Then, it can be pulled up root and all. Too few now want to pull it. So let it grow apace. Soon enough enough will want to uproot the weed and throw it in the fire of laughter. It is, after all, toxic and self-defeating.

Let the evil ones gloat. Let them "win." They deserve every bit of the happiness they harvest thereby.; 2/24/12, 12:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Rev -- Your argument presumes so much that it's quite impossible to attack. I suppose it's clever that way.

I argue contrary to you that we should have space aliens come and show us a portal to a place where there is an endless supply of everything we want. See, if that happens, you are completely wrong.

I know where you are going. But, really, you've gotten yourself into a situation where the whole fiat money system becomes untenable. What would happen in your story is that something else would become money until the situation stabilizes -- cigarettes, perhaps, or gold. What would happen in my story is that we'd see an end to scarcity. So, y story is better. And I win.

You also have the problem of selling the money into the market in the first place, and getting it to people.; 2/24/12, 12:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow, David. A wiser commenter would not have gone full loon on cue like that.

But I appreciate it. Makes my life easier.

Preach on, brother.; 2/24/12, 12:29 AM
I ♥ Willard said...: W was a very good President. A great President in many ways

Yes! It's a shame he couldn't run in 2008. We needed a great President to clean up the mess the last President left us with!; 2/24/12, 1:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Willard -- What -- except for spending even more money -- is Obama doing that Bush did not do? What has changed? What laws are new? What is the different monetary or fiscal policy?

Do gather your thoughts and try to be specific. I'll wait.

Thanks in advance.; 2/24/12, 1:44 AM
I ♥ Willard said...: The two worst Presidents in the history of the US have been within my lifetime: Carter and Obama.
FDR comes close, but I wasn't born yet.

So let me get this straight... the history of the US begins with your birth?; 2/24/12, 1:45 AM
Saint Croix said...: Rev -- If the U.S. currency goes down in value, it makes our goods and services easier to sell in other countries and imported goods and services more expensive. It's a wash, at worst.

No. The worst thing is that you inflate your currency, and then things like oil and food get more expensive for ordinary people.

Please tell us why $5 a gallon gas is "a wash, at worst."

Or, say, $10 for a gallon of milk.

You might want to google "inflation" or "hyper inflation" before you speak on this issue.

I'll give you an example: the Weimar Republic. They had a lot of debts they didn't want to pay. (Sound familiar?) So they inflated their currency.

It's easy to pay debts when you use monopoly money.

Unfortunately for the German people, the inflation got out of hand. Hyperinflation. Total societal chaos ensued. Hitler came to power.

In the Carter years, we jacked up interest rates to fight inflation. Maybe you remember that.

That's a dangerous thing to do. It makes it more expensive to borrow money. It chokes off economic growth. And yet the Fed thought the inflation was so bad, it did it.

And we had a couple of really bad years, and then 20 years of economic prosperity.

In our current economic environment, we lie about inflation. We back out things like food and gas from the inflation index. And we have a lot of countries with huge debts.

That is why, by the way, we don't raise interest rates. Because that makes our debts more expensive for us.

Raising interest rates is costly, and hard, but sometimes that's the smart thing to do.

Right now we have huge debts, relative to our g.n.p.

So do most of the countries in Europe. And Japan's debt is unbelievable.

All of these countries are inflating their currencies to make paying our debts easier.

Your assumption that this is no big deal, as long as we all do it, is scary dumb.

Seven, think hard. If inflatioon hits a bunch of countries at once, is that a wash?

If maintaining an expensive currency is a wise thing, then the treasury departments of every country are full of idiots.

Are you really making the argument, "I trust the government"?

What has the government done that has earned this unconditional and unthinking trust?; 2/24/12, 2:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Croix -- Just a couple points on your rather meandering essay.

First, I have an economics degree. You need not school me in the dismal science.

Second, I don't trust governments. I am telling you the fact that every government wants a lower currency. Ask yourself why. More than likely, it is because policymakers believe it is a good thing. Policymakers in democratic regimes, who have their asses on the line, and policymakers in autocratic regimes as well. You have to be deeply paranoid to think these policymakers are not doing what they believe to be in the interest of their own countries.

Third, I have seen the recent argument that commodities are expensive in the United States because our currency is devalued. I think this argument is wrong. The dollar is simply not trading low against other currencies. It is now trading higher than it has been. Moreover, while some things, like gasoline, are more expensive, other things, like televisions, are much cheaper. The current period is simply not inflationary, by any measure. The current period is highly deflationary, which is why the Fed has pumped money like crazy.

Finally, when we see interest rates above, say, five percent, you can make arguments about high interest rates and inflation. Until then, you sound silly.; 2/24/12, 3:25 AM
Saint Croix said...: I am telling you the fact that every government wants a lower currency. Ask yourself why.

Because Europe, Japan, and the U.S. have incredibly high debt levels. And we want to pay off our debts as cheaply as possible.

You have to be deeply paranoid to think these policymakers are not doing what they believe to be in the interest of their own countries.

Are you sure you're a Republican?

I can see the bumper stickers now.

Vote for Obama, he's trying hard. He means well. He went to Harvard. At least we're doing better than Bulgaria.

I have seen the recent argument that commodities are expensive in the United States because our currency is devalued. I think this argument is wrong.

Apparently you don't eat. Or buy gas.

The dollar is simply not trading low against other currencies. It is now trading higher than it has been.

Dude, if you and I fall down a well, and you break a leg, I am doing better than you.

But both of us are in a fucking well.

The current period is simply not inflationary, by any measure.

What about, uh, precious metals?

That video cracks me up.

Finally, when we see interest rates above, say, five percent, you can make arguments about high interest rates and inflation. Until then, you sound silly.

Yeah, because there's no inflation until Ben Bernanke says there is.

the Fed has pumped money like crazy.

Yes. That leads to inflation. And there has been no intrinsic economic growth at all. So all we're doing is inflating our currency.; 2/24/12, 6:24 AM
Saint Croix said...: Article explains hyperinflation.

Note how the countries did it to their own currency. They wanted to avoid paying their massive debts. So they intentionally inflated their currency.

We are doing this now.

The thing about money, its based on faith and trust in the currency. It's actually just little green pieces of paper. When people lose faith in its value--and that's what inflation is--these things can go out of control very quickly.

What's spooky about the Weimar republic is how normal everything was. And then it all went crazy, very quickly.; 2/24/12, 6:41 AM
Saint Croix said...: This is long but good. Kyle Bass talks about the economic crisis in Europe and Japan.

If you don't know who Kyle Bass is, he's one of the first guys who saw the subprime mortgage meltdown and he made a fortune from it.

He's featured in Michael Lewis' book, Boomerang.

And here's his criticism of what we're doing in the U.S.; 2/24/12, 7:49 AM