Michele Bachmann slammed the president last night, at an educational forum held by Newscorp and the College Board in New York. She appeared via satellite, and said his decision to amend students loans was an "abuse of power" that would prompt people to avoid financial responsibility. She added that, putting the burden of the loan debt onto the taxpayer is a "moral hazard."
I mention her comments because in my recent entries, I've noted that although the White House stated that the president's executive decision for changing payback terms and conditions of those loans "will carry no additional costs to taxpayers," I don't see how that can possibly be true.
And now it seems, I've got agreement in my contention from a presidential candidate. And although I don't think she has the experience, credentials or capabilities required as president, because she simply hasn't been in government that long, she certainly has enough knowledge to comment validly in this case. In 1988, she received an LL.M. degree in tax law from the William & Mary School of Law, and from1988 to 1993, she was an attorney for the IRS. And that expertise is good enough for me.
On another subject, Rick Perry's announced that he plans to skip some of the upcoming presidential debates, which was met with criticism from some of the other candidates. Particularly former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, who said that to skip the debates would be "an enormous" mistake.
Gingrich went on to state, "Why would any Republican want to vote for someone who can't stand on the same platform as us, and the thought that he is then going to stand on the platform against Obama? I think it would just define him out of the race."
However, as far I'm concerned and have noted many times in prior blogs, I've never watched a debate, have no interest in them at all, and frankly, don't understand their purpose. I also have many friends who vote, talk with them frequently and they don't watch them either. In fact, we discuss politics all the time but the subject of debates never comes up. And, as I keep mentioning in my writings on the subject, I doubt you can find a worse debater on the planet than "W" Bush. He mumbles, inarticulately stumbles, and isn't exactly the fastest finger on the verbal trigger by any means. So, how come he got elected twice?
Aside from that, I can't conceive that any interested voter doesn't clearly know what all these candidates are about. There's information about them all over the place. And that's why I don't understand what a great debating talent means, because the presidency isn't about BS. And to prove the point, we have a supposedly great debater in office right now, but he sure as hell doesn't have a clue in the world about what's needed to be a worthy President of the United States.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment