Boat Anchorism Coming on Hard

[sirs]

Palin and McCain are not very wise about the economy, and perhaps not wise enough to choose advisers who are. Selecting advisers is far more important than expertise. But you have to know something about the economy to select good advisers.

And who's on Obama's team as his cheif economic advisor?  Oh yea, former Fannie Mae CEO, Franklin Raines.  More of that great *snicker* Obama judgement on display for all to see

[Knutey]

Selecting advisers is far more important than expertise.

I saw this same point made quite well in Michavellis "The Prince" , it does seem to be true.


So how wise does one prove oneself if one picks  Senator Biden as a running mate?

Even more so ,McCain picking the retarded Palin.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/npUMUASwaec&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Xavier_Onassis]

Whoa! The bailout is all about healthcare and job creation, even though it does make me sick, like everyone else, and increased trade and more job creation.
 
It's like the Barbie where you asked her a question about your sister being so mean and pulled her string and she told you all about Ken and her groovy new threads.

[Amianthus]

Whoa! The bailout is all about healthcare and job creation, even though it does make me sick, like everyone else, and increased trade and more job creation.

One then has to wonder why Katie mentioned health care and job creation in her question if she didn't want to hear about it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

She said why piss away the money on Wall Street, which has nothing to do with health care and job creation INSTEAD OF spending it on those things?

Palin's answer might make a D- on an Econ 101 exam at a reputable college at best.

She had no idea of any relationship between the bailout and healthcare and job creation.She was just spouting talking points from her prep classes.

Please, you are smart enough to realize that she was incredibly lame and ditzy here.

[Knutey]

Whoa! The bailout is all about healthcare and job creation, even though it does make me sick, like everyone else, and increased trade and more job creation.

One then has to wonder why Katie mentioned health care and job creation in her question if she didn't want to hear about it?

Maybe she wanted to trap her into looking stupid? Well , if so, she succeeded nicely.

[Plane]

That you don't understand her answer doesn't prove that the answer is unintelligent.


What I amn wondering about is the convolution of the question.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That you don't understand her answer doesn't prove that the answer is unintelligent.


What I amn wondering about is the convolution of the question.

____________________________________________
The question is simple.

Why pay  bazillions to a few banks who caused the mess, when you could pay the people who are really hurting?

A smart person, asked an unfair question, will explain that the question is unfair.

She didn't do this, and gave am answer that was a mere assortment of talking points: paying the banks for bad loans does not create jobs and will not pay for health care.

Paying off an unemployed person's loan will not give them a job. She could have said this, but did not.

Her answer was ditzy.

[Plane]

That you don't understand her answer doesn't prove that the answer is unintelligent.


What I amn wondering about is the convolution of the question.

____________________________________________
The question is simple.

Why pay  bazillions to a few banks who caused the mess, when you could pay the people who are really hurting?

A smart person, asked an unfair question, will explain that the question is unfair.

She didn't do this, and gave am answer that was a mere assortment of talking points: paying the banks for bad loans does not create jobs and will not pay for health care.

Paying off an unemployed person's loan will not give them a job. She could have said this, but did not.

Her answer was ditzy.

You simplified the question nicely , but you didn't do as well simplyfieing the answer.

[Xavier_Onassis]

you didn't do as well simplyfieing the answer.

========================================
How is that my job? Palin is the one who tried, and failed, to answer the question. Unlike in the debate, she had virtually unlimited time, but she did not understand diddly about economics, and therefore repeated what she was coached to say about job creation and health care. Everyone is for more jobs, everyone is for healthcare for themselves.

It was Palin's job to simplify the answer, and her answer did not make any logical sense. She said that the Bailout should be signed so everyone could have healthcare and jobs would be created. That isn't the purpose of the bailout. Eventually, if it is not signed, more people will be thrown out of work and/or will find healthcare unaffordable, but it is a bailout to remove bad loans from idiots who should never have granted them and is not a healthcare or a job creation bill at all.

That's like saying eat your spinach in February so Santa won't forget you. Children should not drink coffee because it will stunt their growth or make then darker (that is a common thing Black people say to their kids).

[Plane]

you didn't do as well simplyfieing the answer.

========================================
How is that my job? Palin is the one who tried, and failed, to answer the question. Unlike in the debate, she had virtually unlimited time, but she did not understand diddly about economics, and therefore repeated what she was coached to say about job creation and health care. Everyone is for more jobs, everyone is for healthcare for themselves.

It was Palin's job to simplify the answer, and her answer did not make any logical sense. She said that the Bailout should be signed so everyone could have healthcare and jobs would be created. That isn't the purpose of the bailout. Eventually, if it is not signed, more people will be thrown out of work and/or will find healthcare unaffordable, but it is a bailout to remove bad loans from idiots who should never have granted them and is not a healthcare or a job creation bill at all.

That's like saying eat your spinach in February so Santa won't forget you. Children should not drink coffee because it will stunt their growth or make then darker (that is a common thing Black people say to their kids).

I think she did answer the question , but then she went on and on after she could have quit.

I wonder how Domer is doing these days?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think she did answer the question , but then she went on and on after she could have quit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Did she, really? I agree that her 'answer' was wordy, but it was more a smokescreen than an answer.
Here is what she really said:

She said that the bill should be passed.

She claimed that passing it would somehow inexplicably create jobs and affordable health care.

In no way did she explain how this would work.

She said nothing about spending $700 trillion on the citizens of the US INSTEAD of turning this money over to the Sec. of the Treasury to use at his own discretion, which was understood NOT to be healthcare and job creation.

So she sort of answered it.
Almost.
Well, kinda.

The fact that you thought she answered it would make her handlers proud.
Their chests would puff out like those of choice squabs.

[Plane]

She said that the bill should be passed.
She claimed that passing it would somehow inexplicably create jobs and affordable health care.
She said nothing about spending $700 trillion on the citizens of the US.

So she sort of answered it.
Almost.
Well, kinda.

It is possible that the bailout willhead off a recession or depression , if she beleives that it will then she is talking about the harm of a recession that is by this measure avoidable.

Unemployment cheifly , but all those other effects can show up with a market crash and unemployment spike.

If she were to mention all of the potential downside of a recession she would have been giveing a Clintonesque very long speech.

I would advise her to be more breif , perhaps we can agree on that , but Kathy Couric asked a question nearly as long as that answer , that wasn't needed either.

But was the criticism really that the answer was too long or that it didn't answer the question?
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is possible that the bailout willhead off a recession or depression , if she beleives that it will then she is talking about the harm of a recession that is by this measure avoidable.

Unemployment cheifly , but all those other effects can show up with a market crash and unemployment spike.

If she were to mention all of the potential downside of a recession she would have been giveing a Clintonesque very long speech.

I would advise her to be more breif , perhaps we can agree on that , but Kathy Couric asked a question nearly as long as that answer , that wasn't needed either.

But was the criticism really that the answer was too long or that it didn't answer the question?
 ===========================================================
It didn;t answer the question. To answer it well, more, not fewer, words would have been needed. The financial bailout is complicated, and hard to explain even by economists.

If she meant that by heading off a depression, healthcare and job creation will be more possible than they otherwise ight be, she could have said that. But she didn't.

Her answer seemed long because it rambled all over the place without ever answering the question. It contained two positive statements" job creation and healthcare, and that made it sound positive.

What we all need to realize here is that there is Sarah Palin, and Sarah Palin, the Disney movie, and we are being sold the latter.