[underdose]

I have to say I’m amazed at how many people like the choice of Palin. I didn’t realize there were so many Koolaid drinkers on this blog. How can it be that you read piggington, understand the real estate bubble, yet can’t see the obvious mindlessness of this pick?

The original poster asked what’s not to like:

– The pick is an insult to most Hillary supporters. Palin is polar opposite on all issues, so clearly McCain is saying that he thinks women voters are so dumb they will just vote for any woman. Any Hillary supporter who is anti-gun, pro-choice, anti-oil, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-equal pay, anti-war will consider this move by McCain as sleezy.

– She is under investigation for an ethics violation. Did McCain fail to do his homework? Or did he pick her anyway, feeling her gender trumps her qualifications?

– Her stance on teen pregnancy is to teach abstinance. How effective is that compaign? It has failed under her own roof! She has a 17 year old unmarried pregnant daughter. If she can’t get the message to her own family… Again, lack of homework by McCain? A stupid choice in the face of this failure?

– She has no real national exposure, and zero international experience. It undermines McCain’s only criticism of Obama. We are told that because Alaska is close to Russia, she has ample foreign policy experience. Seriously. That’s the strength of the arguments in favor of Palin. Can any rational, thinking person consider that anything other than the most vacuous claim ever made? Again, terrible judgment by the McCain camp.

– She is an evangelical fanatic that wants to teach creationism in schools. Maybe that’s a plus for the 30% of America that share her zeal. The other 70% of us want our First Amendment intact, and don’t want our children dumbed down by someone who can’t grasp that the existence of cell phones and GPS navigation systems prove the Genesis story false.

– She wants to carve up her home state of Alaska to facilitate further dependence on oil. Obama supports pursuing alternative energies in order to end the addiction. Anyone who favors continuing to use something that pollutes, contributes to global warming, must in large part be purchased from people who hate us, is at the heart of geo-political strife and bloodshed, and ultimately will run out is either very, very stupid, or very, very greedy and on the big-oil payroll. Again, very poor judgment.

I could go on and on.

No what was there to like about her again?

[underdose]

I have to say I’m amazed at how many people like the choice of Palin. I didn’t realize there were so many Koolaid drinkers on this blog. How can it be that you read piggington, understand the real estate bubble, yet can’t see the obvious mindlessness of this pick?

The original poster asked what’s not to like:

– The pick is an insult to most Hillary supporters. Palin is polar opposite on all issues, so clearly McCain is saying that he thinks women voters are so dumb they will just vote for any woman. Any Hillary supporter who is anti-gun, pro-choice, anti-oil, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-equal pay, anti-war will consider this move by McCain as sleezy.

– She is under investigation for an ethics violation. Did McCain fail to do his homework? Or did he pick her anyway, feeling her gender trumps her qualifications?

– Her stance on teen pregnancy is to teach abstinance. How effective is that compaign? It has failed under her own roof! She has a 17 year old unmarried pregnant daughter. If she can’t get the message to her own family… Again, lack of homework by McCain? A stupid choice in the face of this failure?

– She has no real national exposure, and zero international experience. It undermines McCain’s only criticism of Obama. We are told that because Alaska is close to Russia, she has ample foreign policy experience. Seriously. That’s the strength of the arguments in favor of Palin. Can any rational, thinking person consider that anything other than the most vacuous claim ever made? Again, terrible judgment by the McCain camp.

– She is an evangelical fanatic that wants to teach creationism in schools. Maybe that’s a plus for the 30% of America that share her zeal. The other 70% of us want our First Amendment intact, and don’t want our children dumbed down by someone who can’t grasp that the existence of cell phones and GPS navigation systems prove the Genesis story false.

– She wants to carve up her home state of Alaska to facilitate further dependence on oil. Obama supports pursuing alternative energies in order to end the addiction. Anyone who favors continuing to use something that pollutes, contributes to global warming, must in large part be purchased from people who hate us, is at the heart of geo-political strife and bloodshed, and ultimately will run out is either very, very stupid, or very, very greedy and on the big-oil payroll. Again, very poor judgment.

I could go on and on.

No what was there to like about her again?

[underdose]

I have to say I’m amazed at how many people like the choice of Palin. I didn’t realize there were so many Koolaid drinkers on this blog. How can it be that you read piggington, understand the real estate bubble, yet can’t see the obvious mindlessness of this pick?

The original poster asked what’s not to like:

– The pick is an insult to most Hillary supporters. Palin is polar opposite on all issues, so clearly McCain is saying that he thinks women voters are so dumb they will just vote for any woman. Any Hillary supporter who is anti-gun, pro-choice, anti-oil, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-equal pay, anti-war will consider this move by McCain as sleezy.

– She is under investigation for an ethics violation. Did McCain fail to do his homework? Or did he pick her anyway, feeling her gender trumps her qualifications?

– Her stance on teen pregnancy is to teach abstinance. How effective is that compaign? It has failed under her own roof! She has a 17 year old unmarried pregnant daughter. If she can’t get the message to her own family… Again, lack of homework by McCain? A stupid choice in the face of this failure?

– She has no real national exposure, and zero international experience. It undermines McCain’s only criticism of Obama. We are told that because Alaska is close to Russia, she has ample foreign policy experience. Seriously. That’s the strength of the arguments in favor of Palin. Can any rational, thinking person consider that anything other than the most vacuous claim ever made? Again, terrible judgment by the McCain camp.

– She is an evangelical fanatic that wants to teach creationism in schools. Maybe that’s a plus for the 30% of America that share her zeal. The other 70% of us want our First Amendment intact, and don’t want our children dumbed down by someone who can’t grasp that the existence of cell phones and GPS navigation systems prove the Genesis story false.

– She wants to carve up her home state of Alaska to facilitate further dependence on oil. Obama supports pursuing alternative energies in order to end the addiction. Anyone who favors continuing to use something that pollutes, contributes to global warming, must in large part be purchased from people who hate us, is at the heart of geo-political strife and bloodshed, and ultimately will run out is either very, very stupid, or very, very greedy and on the big-oil payroll. Again, very poor judgment.

I could go on and on.

No what was there to like about her again?

[underdose]

I have to say I’m amazed at how many people like the choice of Palin. I didn’t realize there were so many Koolaid drinkers on this blog. How can it be that you read piggington, understand the real estate bubble, yet can’t see the obvious mindlessness of this pick?

The original poster asked what’s not to like:

– The pick is an insult to most Hillary supporters. Palin is polar opposite on all issues, so clearly McCain is saying that he thinks women voters are so dumb they will just vote for any woman. Any Hillary supporter who is anti-gun, pro-choice, anti-oil, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-equal pay, anti-war will consider this move by McCain as sleezy.

– She is under investigation for an ethics violation. Did McCain fail to do his homework? Or did he pick her anyway, feeling her gender trumps her qualifications?

– Her stance on teen pregnancy is to teach abstinance. How effective is that compaign? It has failed under her own roof! She has a 17 year old unmarried pregnant daughter. If she can’t get the message to her own family… Again, lack of homework by McCain? A stupid choice in the face of this failure?

– She has no real national exposure, and zero international experience. It undermines McCain’s only criticism of Obama. We are told that because Alaska is close to Russia, she has ample foreign policy experience. Seriously. That’s the strength of the arguments in favor of Palin. Can any rational, thinking person consider that anything other than the most vacuous claim ever made? Again, terrible judgment by the McCain camp.

– She is an evangelical fanatic that wants to teach creationism in schools. Maybe that’s a plus for the 30% of America that share her zeal. The other 70% of us want our First Amendment intact, and don’t want our children dumbed down by someone who can’t grasp that the existence of cell phones and GPS navigation systems prove the Genesis story false.

– She wants to carve up her home state of Alaska to facilitate further dependence on oil. Obama supports pursuing alternative energies in order to end the addiction. Anyone who favors continuing to use something that pollutes, contributes to global warming, must in large part be purchased from people who hate us, is at the heart of geo-political strife and bloodshed, and ultimately will run out is either very, very stupid, or very, very greedy and on the big-oil payroll. Again, very poor judgment.

I could go on and on.

No what was there to like about her again?

[underdose]

I have to say I’m amazed at how many people like the choice of Palin. I didn’t realize there were so many Koolaid drinkers on this blog. How can it be that you read piggington, understand the real estate bubble, yet can’t see the obvious mindlessness of this pick?

The original poster asked what’s not to like:

– The pick is an insult to most Hillary supporters. Palin is polar opposite on all issues, so clearly McCain is saying that he thinks women voters are so dumb they will just vote for any woman. Any Hillary supporter who is anti-gun, pro-choice, anti-oil, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-equal pay, anti-war will consider this move by McCain as sleezy.

– She is under investigation for an ethics violation. Did McCain fail to do his homework? Or did he pick her anyway, feeling her gender trumps her qualifications?

– Her stance on teen pregnancy is to teach abstinance. How effective is that compaign? It has failed under her own roof! She has a 17 year old unmarried pregnant daughter. If she can’t get the message to her own family… Again, lack of homework by McCain? A stupid choice in the face of this failure?

– She has no real national exposure, and zero international experience. It undermines McCain’s only criticism of Obama. We are told that because Alaska is close to Russia, she has ample foreign policy experience. Seriously. That’s the strength of the arguments in favor of Palin. Can any rational, thinking person consider that anything other than the most vacuous claim ever made? Again, terrible judgment by the McCain camp.

– She is an evangelical fanatic that wants to teach creationism in schools. Maybe that’s a plus for the 30% of America that share her zeal. The other 70% of us want our First Amendment intact, and don’t want our children dumbed down by someone who can’t grasp that the existence of cell phones and GPS navigation systems prove the Genesis story false.

– She wants to carve up her home state of Alaska to facilitate further dependence on oil. Obama supports pursuing alternative energies in order to end the addiction. Anyone who favors continuing to use something that pollutes, contributes to global warming, must in large part be purchased from people who hate us, is at the heart of geo-political strife and bloodshed, and ultimately will run out is either very, very stupid, or very, very greedy and on the big-oil payroll. Again, very poor judgment.

I could go on and on.

No what was there to like about her again?

[underdose]

Very well put, bsrsharma!

I was curious what people’s thoughts on the implications of Paulson’s push today for covered bonds. My intuition is that this doesn’t seem like much of a solution. It sounds like it requires banks to be more on the hook for the quality of the loans. Not a bad thing, but will it make them any more eager to lend? They were only happy to lend money at silly interest rates when they could dump the risk on someone else. Now, I would think they, like anyone else, would demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for assuming a higher risk. Won’t this add to upward pressure on mortgage rates? Will, as usual, Paulson’s plan have unintended consequences? Or is there some wrinkle here I’m missing?

[underdose]

Very well put, bsrsharma!

I was curious what people’s thoughts on the implications of Paulson’s push today for covered bonds. My intuition is that this doesn’t seem like much of a solution. It sounds like it requires banks to be more on the hook for the quality of the loans. Not a bad thing, but will it make them any more eager to lend? They were only happy to lend money at silly interest rates when they could dump the risk on someone else. Now, I would think they, like anyone else, would demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for assuming a higher risk. Won’t this add to upward pressure on mortgage rates? Will, as usual, Paulson’s plan have unintended consequences? Or is there some wrinkle here I’m missing?

[underdose]

Very well put, bsrsharma!

I was curious what people’s thoughts on the implications of Paulson’s push today for covered bonds. My intuition is that this doesn’t seem like much of a solution. It sounds like it requires banks to be more on the hook for the quality of the loans. Not a bad thing, but will it make them any more eager to lend? They were only happy to lend money at silly interest rates when they could dump the risk on someone else. Now, I would think they, like anyone else, would demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for assuming a higher risk. Won’t this add to upward pressure on mortgage rates? Will, as usual, Paulson’s plan have unintended consequences? Or is there some wrinkle here I’m missing?

[underdose]

Very well put, bsrsharma!

I was curious what people’s thoughts on the implications of Paulson’s push today for covered bonds. My intuition is that this doesn’t seem like much of a solution. It sounds like it requires banks to be more on the hook for the quality of the loans. Not a bad thing, but will it make them any more eager to lend? They were only happy to lend money at silly interest rates when they could dump the risk on someone else. Now, I would think they, like anyone else, would demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for assuming a higher risk. Won’t this add to upward pressure on mortgage rates? Will, as usual, Paulson’s plan have unintended consequences? Or is there some wrinkle here I’m missing?

[underdose]

Very well put, bsrsharma!

I was curious what people’s thoughts on the implications of Paulson’s push today for covered bonds. My intuition is that this doesn’t seem like much of a solution. It sounds like it requires banks to be more on the hook for the quality of the loans. Not a bad thing, but will it make them any more eager to lend? They were only happy to lend money at silly interest rates when they could dump the risk on someone else. Now, I would think they, like anyone else, would demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for assuming a higher risk. Won’t this add to upward pressure on mortgage rates? Will, as usual, Paulson’s plan have unintended consequences? Or is there some wrinkle here I’m missing?

[underdose]

Arguably, we are already paying a “massive tax”, just not directly at the pump. The government has borrowed trillions of dollars to conduct military activities in places where “we have a vital economic interest”. Even beyond the Iraq war, in times of relative peace we operate bases throughout the Middle East and patrol the waters with warships. You do pay for that in your income tax (or at least you will someday when the bill comes due). I would guess that oil would be a LOT more expensive if the US military didn’t intervene so agressively to ensure its accessibility.

In addition there is the matter of inflation. It has been shown by many people (so I won’t go through the exercise) that monetary devaluation is an insidious kind of tax. The government takes purchase power from your wages and savings and spends it. Yes, we have explosive dia…, er, um, I mean a massive tax.

[underdose]

Arguably, we are already paying a “massive tax”, just not directly at the pump. The government has borrowed trillions of dollars to conduct military activities in places where “we have a vital economic interest”. Even beyond the Iraq war, in times of relative peace we operate bases throughout the Middle East and patrol the waters with warships. You do pay for that in your income tax (or at least you will someday when the bill comes due). I would guess that oil would be a LOT more expensive if the US military didn’t intervene so agressively to ensure its accessibility.

In addition there is the matter of inflation. It has been shown by many people (so I won’t go through the exercise) that monetary devaluation is an insidious kind of tax. The government takes purchase power from your wages and savings and spends it. Yes, we have explosive dia…, er, um, I mean a massive tax.

[underdose]

Arguably, we are already paying a “massive tax”, just not directly at the pump. The government has borrowed trillions of dollars to conduct military activities in places where “we have a vital economic interest”. Even beyond the Iraq war, in times of relative peace we operate bases throughout the Middle East and patrol the waters with warships. You do pay for that in your income tax (or at least you will someday when the bill comes due). I would guess that oil would be a LOT more expensive if the US military didn’t intervene so agressively to ensure its accessibility.

In addition there is the matter of inflation. It has been shown by many people (so I won’t go through the exercise) that monetary devaluation is an insidious kind of tax. The government takes purchase power from your wages and savings and spends it. Yes, we have explosive dia…, er, um, I mean a massive tax.

[underdose]

Arguably, we are already paying a “massive tax”, just not directly at the pump. The government has borrowed trillions of dollars to conduct military activities in places where “we have a vital economic interest”. Even beyond the Iraq war, in times of relative peace we operate bases throughout the Middle East and patrol the waters with warships. You do pay for that in your income tax (or at least you will someday when the bill comes due). I would guess that oil would be a LOT more expensive if the US military didn’t intervene so agressively to ensure its accessibility.

In addition there is the matter of inflation. It has been shown by many people (so I won’t go through the exercise) that monetary devaluation is an insidious kind of tax. The government takes purchase power from your wages and savings and spends it. Yes, we have explosive dia…, er, um, I mean a massive tax.

[underdose]

Arguably, we are already paying a “massive tax”, just not directly at the pump. The government has borrowed trillions of dollars to conduct military activities in places where “we have a vital economic interest”. Even beyond the Iraq war, in times of relative peace we operate bases throughout the Middle East and patrol the waters with warships. You do pay for that in your income tax (or at least you will someday when the bill comes due). I would guess that oil would be a LOT more expensive if the US military didn’t intervene so agressively to ensure its accessibility.

In addition there is the matter of inflation. It has been shown by many people (so I won’t go through the exercise) that monetary devaluation is an insidious kind of tax. The government takes purchase power from your wages and savings and spends it. Yes, we have explosive dia…, er, um, I mean a massive tax.

[Author]

Posts