Archive

ShareThis Page
Verbatim | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Verbatim

Tribune-Review
| Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:00 p.m.

“The progressive ‘clerisy’ and their developer allies may wish to destroy the suburban dream, but they will not be able to stay in office for long with such attitudes. America remains, and likely will remain, a predominantly suburban nation for decades to come. This demographic reality means that whoever wins the suburban vote in 2016 and beyond will inherit the political future.”

— Joel Kotkin, executive editor of NewGeography.com, writing in The Daily Beast on the federal government’s attempt to push more and more people into urban cores.

“Since 2008 the U.S. and most of Europe have copied Japan’s strategy of government-driven growth, and the result has also been bigger governments with less growth. Having tried everything else, (Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo) Abe will have to embrace supply-side reform if he wants to fulfill his growth promise.”

— from a Wall Street Journal editorial on word that Japan has slipped into recession for the fourth time since 2008.

“This is not a planet-saving climate-change pact. Rather this plan represents unilateral economic disarmament by the United States as Beijing continues its quest to replace America as the globe’s economic superpower.”

— Stephen Moore, chief economist at The Heritage Foundation, writing in The Washington Times on the new climate agreement with the Chinese.

“The only surprising thing about ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber’s revelations that the legislation was based on a series of lies and voter stupidity was that Mr. Gruber was so stupid to think no one would see the videos of him saying so.”

— Richard Rahn, chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth, writing in The Washington Times.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.