A FEDeral case of a C(ri)ITIcal situation

NYT reported today that "Plan to Rescue Citigroup Begins to Emerge." Apparently, "Under the proposal, the government would shoulder losses at Citigroup if those losses exceeded certain levels, according to people briefed on the talks, who spoke on the condition that they not be identified because the plan was still under discussion."

The WSJ has an article titled "Fed Has More Ammunition After Firing Rate-Cut Bullets" in which the writer presents some additional steps the Fed could take, in addition to reducing the short term rates to 0%. One of these would be for the Fed to buy long-term debt, including Treasuries and debt of Fannie and Freddie. This would be incestuous, if it happens.

The actions of the Fed and the Treasury are emblematic of the tail wagging the dog phenomenon. Equity and debt are not risk-free. It was the assumption, on the part of quite a few, that there was no risk associated with these "investments" that has caused the current mess. Rather than focusing on the fundamentals, i.e. education and job creation, the government is focusing on the financials. Risk-takers have to accept the downside. To the extent that regulatory failures contributed to the current mess, both the bureaucrats and the members of Congress on the appropriate committees should be held accountable.

Obama has announced a job creation program over the weekend. I have not had the time to take a look at the details. The key is the cash flow to support the investments. Apparently, Obama would not raise the tax rates for the 'wealthy' back to pre-Bush levels, but would just let them expire in 2011. This would signal that Obama is not concerned with debt levels and will add more deficits. Perhaps he will follow his guru, Ronald Reagan, in creating record deficits.

Two days to go....to either stay afloat or to sink like a McBrick

This evening I watched (on MSNBC) Obama with Bruce Springsteen at a rally in Ohio. Obama was in fine form, and gave what I consider to be his best speech in this election cycle. He referred to McCain running Bush's economic policies and Cheney's military policies, as a two-fer.

Dick Morris and his buddies are running a TV commercial that shows clips of Jeremiah Wright and associates Obama with him.

It is clear that the country is in such a bad shape that even if Obama wins, the best he can hope to achieve is to keep things stable or perhaps get some minor improvements. If McPalin win, the middle class will continue to be trampled by the ELEPHANTS. McCain plans to cut taxes and cut spending- the perfect recipe for the aging infrastructure, the neglected education, and a health care system on life support.

If Obama wins, I hope the first thing he does is to improve the political system and its transparency. The corruption in these elections is simply gross. People need to be held accountable.

McPalin Highlight their Lack of Education - don't know that "Social" is first in 'Socialism"

McCain, # 894 out of 899 in his graduating class, has taken a number of shots at educators, calling them elite. This follows the example of GWB who for years dismissed the calls from the vast number of scientists who had been raising warnings about global climate change. Mr. McCain, you never paid attention to studies, but there are people who spend many years studying specific topics and are knowledgeable.

On Socialism. Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the following definitions for socialism:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Mr. McCain, Obama has never advocated anything that falls into 1 or 2 above. Published reports indicate that even today, there is unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done, and in fact, women could receive up to 20% less than men for a similar job. This could be socialism, but it has nothing to do with Obama.
Any government, by definition, serves society and not any one particular individual. By this broad definition any government is socialistic. You keep harping about the need for more regulation of the financial industry. That is socialistic.
In simple terms, government collects taxes from the people. Once the money comes in, it goes into the governmnent's coffers where all the money is pooled. The government does not differentiate taxes received from one person from the dollars received from another. Money gets pooled, and this pooled money then gets spent. This is socialism. However, in the case of U.S. government, since the government (of GWB) has been borrowing money for spending, it is depending on foreign countries for its socialism.
WHen Obama wants to raise taxes for those making >X amount of money, it is raising revenues for the government. McCain, separate that from providing tax cuts to the middle class. A tax cut just means that government collects less money from people. It is NOT giving back money, it is taking less money. This is NOT socialism, and is NOT redistributing wealth. If Obama borrowed money and provided a check to everyone in the country that could be considered socialism. Isn't that what President GWB did a few months ago, with support from Congress? You plan to cut taxes for everyone. That is not socialism either, McCain.
If Obama collected money from one group and sent checks to another that is redistributing wealth. Since the government has been in debt for decades, and since YOUR president GWB has jacked up the deficits, there is NO government wealth to redistribute, McCain. Since the Bush tax cuts and deregulation have given us this mess (fiscal and moral deficits), Obama is looking at a solution that will help people just survive. Yes, you don't have a problem, what with 8 houses and a wife who spends $300K on one dress. Many of us have to deal with day-to-day survival.

One simple reason to vote against McPain and the Republicans: These Morons are Proud to be Ignorant, and say one thing and then do the opposite. McPain is the recipe for McSized deficits- fiscal, intellectual, and moral.

Time to Elect a High-GPA High IQ Candidate

Some facts about Obama/Biden and McPain

Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude


Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.
John McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899


Sarah Palin:
1978-1982: Wasilla High School, diploma, 2.2 GPA
1982: Hawaii Pacific College (dropped out)
1983: North Idaho Community College (dropped out)
1984-1985: University of Idaho (dropped out)
1985: Matanuska-Susitna Community College, AK (dropped out)
1986-1987: University of Idaho, BA Communications

What if the Obama/McPain parameters were reversed....

A friend of mine shared the following info about McPain and Obama/Biden.
Quite thought-provoking.

A question of perspective: Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin, what if things were switched around?.. think about it.

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review and Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain had married only once and Obama was a divorcee, having left his first wife after she survived a severe disfiguring car accident?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization? What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker and Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child? Would the polls be different?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

Signing off on Signing Statements

As Sen. Obama is being nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency, my thoughts turn to what he said about 'signing statements.'

George W. Bush has issued 155 signing statements, as of January 28, 2008. These statements let him cherry pick the parts (of the acts passed by Congress) that he would not enforce, rather than exercise a veto. In principle, these signing statements are a violation of the separation of responsibilities and power across the three branches.

Obama's stance on signing statements is that "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives." This should be very disturbing to anyone who is systems oriented and process oriented.

On the other hand, hats off to Sen. McCain for saying that if elected president, he would issue no signing statements reserving the right to disregard parts of laws passed by Congress.

Ob(ama)esity

Sen. Obama comes across as a fit individual, both physically and mentally.

The Rupert Murdoch sham(eless) paper WSJ tries to spin even this perception negatively-

"Too Fit to Be President? Facing an Overweight Electorate, Barack Obama Might Find Low Body Fat a Drawback"
According to this article, "in a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama's skinniness be a liability? Despite his visits to waffle houses, ice-cream parlors and greasy-spoon diners around the country, his slim physique just might have some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them."

So, the public wants to elect someone who is truly like them? Like George Bush?

It appears that there is no floor to the level to which the Murdoch gang will stoop to.

I, for one, will only go to a doctor who is fitter than I am. That is the only way I can get better.

Senator Barack Obama - Please don't get 'Kerry"d away!

* Update*

Obama Courting Evangelicals Once Loyal to Bush

Obama Backs Expanded Government-Funded Faith Organizations


Sen. Obama practices one of the basic principles of marketing- spread uncertainty...He is trying to thread the needle on the 'abortion issue.' At this rate, he will keep losing his core supporters, because it is better to have a Bush third term with the Republicans than with the Democrats. At least the 'Right' party gets the credit. Obama's abortion answer spurs questions.

* Updated*
Article from the Financial Times, Obama seeks to tackle doubters, describes the Senator's changing positions.

WSJ has a brutal Op-Ed on Obama- Bush's Third Term

Two headlines from the past couple of days involving Sen. Barack Obama:

1. Obama backs faith in public life and Obama Seeks Bigger Role for Religious Groups
2. Obama courts conservatives with new faith program
3. Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity

Mr. Obama and his staff are doing their calculations and making their bets on how many independent/evangelical votes they stand to gain and how many liberal votes they might lose by these positions. Mr. Obama has been actively cozying up to the religious right/evangelicals by promising government money for "faith-based" activities and supporting the right wing element of the Supreme Court in its recent rulings on guns and capital punishment.

While many people blame the "Swift Boating" by President Bush's cronies for Sen. Kerry's loss in 2004, perhaps an equally important reason was that Mr. Kerry did not offer a clear, conscientious, liberal alternative to the Republicans. In nearly every issue, he came across as Republican-lite, and the public preferred the 'real' deal rather than the 'lite' version.

At a fundamental level, one's principles should guide one's thoughts and then the resulting actions. There is no reason why the telecommunications companies should be granted immunity, and there is absolutely no reason why government should get involved in religion.

While compromise is part of any political process, it should be on specific policies and procedures and not on principles. Mr. Obama risks losing part of his "core" supporters, and as any successful leader knows, one has to build on the Core and attack from strength- not weaken the Core.