June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
Philip, where should I start? I guess I will start by agreeing with you about moral hazard. If my goal were to “bail out the lenders,” that would indeed be objectionable. But nowhere did I say that was my goal. My goal is to help the homeowners and potential home buyers — the individuals, not the lender/profiteers — AND to guard against a generalized panic that would harm not just the lenders, but the fairly innocent bystanders such as the builders and construction workers who they employ, and, from there, all the others down the line who would be affected. Also, note that I am not suggesting a bailout of the lenders — the typical Democratic response, which is what Bush in the past two days has so rightly rejected — but a VERY modest move by the Fed to stabilize the economy as a whole. That is NOT an example of the moral hazard problem you warn against.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?