Jots with dots 1/14/15

Hypocrisy watching (old business) – Sean Nienow. At one time last year I read up on this. Recall, the hypocrisy is that Nienow is a fiscal responsibility loving (R). Nienow ostensibly bought a booking agency for summer camps that was capable of providing say a $100K income to whoever was to be the professional agent that ran it. He financed it with an SBA loan of $613K. Much but it appears not all of that was properly paid to the seller, then Nienow defaulted on some of the other obligations in his purchase contract. And he never made any loan payments to the SBA. Nienow claims, ya know, the business went south, he had some back luck, can happen to anybody, right?… but I think if you have a little business insight the thing looks transparently hokey. Guy was kinda ‘chasing it’ to draw a Sopranos analogy. I’m surprised chapter 7 resolves that sort of thing, but his case must be more pathetic and less mendacious than I give credit for. If we have a row this session about welfare and being on the dole, it would be good for Nienow to not weigh in on that.

I don’t think he’s great, I don’t think he’s terrible. I do think the proper critique of a slobbery kiss like Chait’s yesterday is that the President has largely failed at being a good liberal. He represents the governmental institutions, not the people. I am not sure that the President’s mind is temperamentally optimal for his job, but I am leaning to the notion he is temperamentally excellent in most other ways. Ya know, Powerline will dissect him for his arrogance or uncaring or petulance… Here, this analysis is I think not all that unflattering. Can’t find a link to demonstrate right now, but I have been of the sense recently that the President demonstrates a lot of personal grace with ‘normal’ people.

Rand: in.

A question I don’t see asked: cheap gas may kill properly kill Keystone, the construction jobs might be temporary, but is there not some value to getting all this oil off the railways?


One thought on “Jots with dots 1/14/15

  1. pm1956

    Neinow: clearly there is some hypocrisy there. At the very least, he needs to understand/have sympathy for government spending when you can’t really predict the future (which, being generous, was what got him onto the mess he is in). Of course, this is mostly a question for him going forward–he can still be all about being fiscally conservative, but he better have sympathy for people and institutions that make mistakes, because by now he knows that shit happens.

    As for Obama, i think that history will be pretty kind to him. That is, of course, a prediction, and i could be wrong, but most of the complaining has been pretty over the top and partisan in nature. Clearly he has not changed the nature of politics in this country or done any of those other miracles, which some of his more rabid supporters initially seemed to claim (and, maybe, he promised to do). But as the first African American President (historical, all by itself) who inherited several wars and an economic crisis, he not only got the country out of those troubles (well, mostly), but also implemented some pretty important programs of his own (Obamacare), which i think will end up in the pantheon of Social Security and Medicare. All in all, a pretty impressive performance, with pretty significant opposition. I do agree with you that he is a failed liberal–I have always thought that Obama was really pretty moderate, all in all, and I think his record indicates that. This is, of course, what i mean about the partisan nature of those who tend to criticize him–calling him a Kenyan socialist, etc. So much of this is clearly unhinged.

    I think your point on Keystone is correct–this is not a jobs bill–very few jobs will be created. i think that the best argument for it is safety and the debate on rail oil cars. I also think that the apparent reason for opposing it (to keep the tar sands from being exploited, and that carbon in the ground) is pretty foolish. Stopping Keystone will not accomplish that goal. Given the the sands are in Canada, we really don’t have much of a say in the matter (which is the basic point of the State Department study on the issue). Although I have seen the issue on pipeline safety versus train car safety come up in the press in a few places. I think it was there in a recent Strib piece on how the Mn delegation is breaking down on the upcoming vote.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s