Just so you know: GMAC was the financial serves arm of General Motors. For a long time, GMAC's main business was providing loans to GM dealers and customers. Then they got into the insurance business, and mortgage operations. A few years ago, GM sold it off in order to raise some cash. When the financial crisis rolled around, GMAC re-organized as a bank holding company so they could apply for a bail-out via TARP funds. They are set to get their next infusion soon. The government is the majority shareholder.
Earlier in 2009, GMAC's banking unit became known as Ally Bank. So if you've seen their commercials on TV, and you had never heard of them, that's who they are.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
GITMO AND THE NATION'S SHAME
Real quick, let me list some events in U.S. history that are shameful. The Salem Witch Trials. The subjugation of American Indians. Slavery. The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Mai-Lai Massacre. Kent State. Abu-Grahib. That's all I can think of right now. I'm sure there are more.
Oh, wait! I remember another one. Remember the time that we caught a group of German Nazi saboteurs in the U.S. during WWII? Up in Maine, I think. Anyway, when they were caught, President Roosevelt had them locked up real tight, declared them enemies of the state, and put them in front of military tribunals real fast. Naturally, they were found guilty, and were executed right away.
What a travesty of justice that was! So shameful!
Right... They got what they had coming.
Now, I know there are differences between the status of those Germans and that of the enemy combatants at Gitmo. But they are technical differences, and to draw distinctions too finely obscures the issue rather than helping to define it. The similarities are far more important, and so obvious that I won't insult you by describing them.
Gitmo is the perfect place for them. I hope they all die and rot there. No vacations to New York. No repatriations to Yemen. Treat them like the Nazis they are.
Oh, wait! I remember another one. Remember the time that we caught a group of German Nazi saboteurs in the U.S. during WWII? Up in Maine, I think. Anyway, when they were caught, President Roosevelt had them locked up real tight, declared them enemies of the state, and put them in front of military tribunals real fast. Naturally, they were found guilty, and were executed right away.
What a travesty of justice that was! So shameful!
Right... They got what they had coming.
Now, I know there are differences between the status of those Germans and that of the enemy combatants at Gitmo. But they are technical differences, and to draw distinctions too finely obscures the issue rather than helping to define it. The similarities are far more important, and so obvious that I won't insult you by describing them.
Gitmo is the perfect place for them. I hope they all die and rot there. No vacations to New York. No repatriations to Yemen. Treat them like the Nazis they are.
WATCHING IRAN
In his remarks today, President Obama "strongly condemned" the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the violence it is committing against its citizens who are in revolt against their leaders. He expressed his "deep admiration" for those who are involved in the revolution. He warns that the world will continue to "bear witness" to the events in Iran. So what?
We are continuing to bear witness to their quest for nuclear weapons, to their supplying money and weapons to the Taliban, and their support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Does the president think that Iran's government is embarrassed by the spectacle of their repression, or their sponsorship of worldwide jihad?
We are continuing to bear witness to their quest for nuclear weapons, to their supplying money and weapons to the Taliban, and their support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Does the president think that Iran's government is embarrassed by the spectacle of their repression, or their sponsorship of worldwide jihad?
UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB
That's the name of the Islamic Terrorist who tried to blow up the plane bound for Detroit from Amsterdam. President Obama has just reassured the nation that his guy is in custody, and has been charged with "atempting to destroy an aircraft". Is that all? Had he tried to burn down Air Force One while it sat in a hangar, I bet more charges would be pending than that. The President noted in his remarks that, had the guy been successful, hundreds of people would have been killed. What about "attempted mass murder", or some charge that uses the term "terror"?
But, we're assured that Eric Holder is on the case, so what's to worry about? I just hope the guy has been read his rights, and that his attorney is competent to represent him.
But, we're assured that Eric Holder is on the case, so what's to worry about? I just hope the guy has been read his rights, and that his attorney is competent to represent him.
AIRLINE SECURITY, PART 2
I understand that the silly "security" rules that were instituted after the latest attempted act of terrorism have been rescinded. Glad to know that the government is reading this blog, and following my advice. Now, what about the issue of "the lists"?
AIRLINE SECURITY
Following the most recent attempted terrorist attack on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, there are new security measures in place for international flights bound for the U.S. To me, it sounds like an attempt to negotiate with terrorists. The U.S. government seems to be saying: We know you can blow up planes if you want to, but you must do it quickly, not within the last hour of the flight. I think the terrorists will agree, don't you?
Janet Napolitano, Director of Homeland Security, explains that the "Watch List" for air travelers has three levels of classification. The low level is a general security designation which evidently requires no special action when a person in this status travels to, or within, the U.S. This was the category The Nigerian Islamic terrorist was in. There are about 550,000 people in this group. The next classification is the "Selectee" designation. Travelers in this category are subject to additional screening at airports, such as a pat-down search. There are 14,000 people in this status. The highest security group is on the "No-Fly" list. They don't get on the plane. There are (only) 4,000 people in this category.
The Nigerian was apparently using his own name and passport. No aliases or forged documents were involved. This means that he (and his handlers) had no doubt he'd pass through security screening, and be allowed to board the plane whether he was on a list or not.
Napolitano is quick to point out that the whole "list" business was dreamed up during the Bush administration, and needs to be re-evaluated for this reason. OK, fine. But here's an idea for you: While this process is being reviewed, let's stop letting foreign airport security personnel, or the TSA, enforce a "Watch List" that evidently offers false security. Instead, revoke all visas issued to anyone who is named on any level the "Watch List", and deny the applications for visas made by anyone on this list.
The new rules keeping people in their seats during the last hour of flight are stupid. Security is best offered by keeping the bastards off the planes in the first place.
Janet Napolitano, Director of Homeland Security, explains that the "Watch List" for air travelers has three levels of classification. The low level is a general security designation which evidently requires no special action when a person in this status travels to, or within, the U.S. This was the category The Nigerian Islamic terrorist was in. There are about 550,000 people in this group. The next classification is the "Selectee" designation. Travelers in this category are subject to additional screening at airports, such as a pat-down search. There are 14,000 people in this status. The highest security group is on the "No-Fly" list. They don't get on the plane. There are (only) 4,000 people in this category.
The Nigerian was apparently using his own name and passport. No aliases or forged documents were involved. This means that he (and his handlers) had no doubt he'd pass through security screening, and be allowed to board the plane whether he was on a list or not.
Napolitano is quick to point out that the whole "list" business was dreamed up during the Bush administration, and needs to be re-evaluated for this reason. OK, fine. But here's an idea for you: While this process is being reviewed, let's stop letting foreign airport security personnel, or the TSA, enforce a "Watch List" that evidently offers false security. Instead, revoke all visas issued to anyone who is named on any level the "Watch List", and deny the applications for visas made by anyone on this list.
The new rules keeping people in their seats during the last hour of flight are stupid. Security is best offered by keeping the bastards off the planes in the first place.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
FESTIVUS
The celebration of Festivus begins with The Airing of Grievances. I'll go first.
1. I'm angry at G. Gordon Liddy. Not because of the Watergate thing. I'm over that. Because I find his commercials for Rosland Capital intimidating, and I always end up buying more gold every time I see him on TV. His commercials should be
preceded by this warning: "The following message contains material that is
coercive and is intended only for wealthy viewers who are not easily hypnotized."
2. Minimalism is underrated and under-funded.
3. Tomatoes and bananas don't taste as good as they used to. In fact, nowadays they taste alike to me. Their color is the only thing that keeps tomatoes off my Cheerios, and bananas out of the bacon sandwiches, but I don't suppose it would matter, anyway. I think I'll switch up, just to see.
4. "Doonesbury" isn't funny anymore. I never could keep the characters straight. Which one is Doonesbury?
5. I wear extra-medium t-shirts, and I can never find my size.
CLICK ON THE COMMENTS BUTTON TO AIR YOUR OWN GRIEVANCES! HAPPY FESTIVUS!
1. I'm angry at G. Gordon Liddy. Not because of the Watergate thing. I'm over that. Because I find his commercials for Rosland Capital intimidating, and I always end up buying more gold every time I see him on TV. His commercials should be
preceded by this warning: "The following message contains material that is
coercive and is intended only for wealthy viewers who are not easily hypnotized."
2. Minimalism is underrated and under-funded.
3. Tomatoes and bananas don't taste as good as they used to. In fact, nowadays they taste alike to me. Their color is the only thing that keeps tomatoes off my Cheerios, and bananas out of the bacon sandwiches, but I don't suppose it would matter, anyway. I think I'll switch up, just to see.
4. "Doonesbury" isn't funny anymore. I never could keep the characters straight. Which one is Doonesbury?
5. I wear extra-medium t-shirts, and I can never find my size.
CLICK ON THE COMMENTS BUTTON TO AIR YOUR OWN GRIEVANCES! HAPPY FESTIVUS!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
CHEAP CHRISTMAS GIFTS
These are cheaper than your favorite beverage at Starbuck's.
Citigroup: $3.275
Fannie Mae: $1.06
Freddie Mac: $1.32
And they need your cash real bad.
Citigroup: $3.275
Fannie Mae: $1.06
Freddie Mac: $1.32
And they need your cash real bad.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
WORTH THE WAIT?
President Obama will wait until the end of the year for Iran to agree to allow its nuclear fuel to be re-processed in Russia, or otherwise comply with UN mandates regarding its nuclear program. John Mayer is waitin' for the world to change. Folks waited for Godot. Ferlinghetti waited for a rebirth of wonder. Adlai Stevenson waited for hell to freeze over. Jimmie Rodgers waited on a train. We all waited for George Jones to show.
And, you just wait and see, Iran will not comply with any mandates. Until both the U.S. and Israel completely disarm, that is. Of course, they're willing to wait for that to happen.
How long is Israel willing to wait before they bomb the Persians back to the 5th century BCE? My guess: four months.
And, you just wait and see, Iran will not comply with any mandates. Until both the U.S. and Israel completely disarm, that is. Of course, they're willing to wait for that to happen.
How long is Israel willing to wait before they bomb the Persians back to the 5th century BCE? My guess: four months.
A SERIOUSLY FLAWED BILL
Paul Krugman, in his column today, describes pending health care reform legislation as a "seriously flawed bill". Of course it is. Then why does he also regard it as "an awesome achievement"? Why is it so important that this legislation be passed now, when Krugman believes congress will spend "years if not decades fixing it"?
It's because passing a health care reform bill has become an end in itself for the Democrats. Two of the main goals originally sought in the legislation were universal coverage and a public option. These are absent in the bill that will likely come out of the conference committee. But never mind if the bill is a shadow of that originally dreamed of. It's a bill that will become law of the land. That's all that matters at this point.
It's because passing a health care reform bill has become an end in itself for the Democrats. Two of the main goals originally sought in the legislation were universal coverage and a public option. These are absent in the bill that will likely come out of the conference committee. But never mind if the bill is a shadow of that originally dreamed of. It's a bill that will become law of the land. That's all that matters at this point.
Monday, December 21, 2009
CASH FOR CLOTURE
Mitch McConnell said on the senate floor that when the Health Care bill passes, it will change America. In reply, Harry Reid smiled and said, "That's why we did it".
Later, Reid replied to criticism that the cloture vote was purchased by ear-marks. He said that there were a number of things in the bill that a lot of senators put in for their own benefit, and said that if there were any senators who didn't get anything in it, it was their own fault. The cynicism is breath-taking, never mind the corruption.
Later, Reid replied to criticism that the cloture vote was purchased by ear-marks. He said that there were a number of things in the bill that a lot of senators put in for their own benefit, and said that if there were any senators who didn't get anything in it, it was their own fault. The cynicism is breath-taking, never mind the corruption.
IDENTITY THEFT
Of all the possible ills that could befall you, this is truly the most unlikely. I don't care if all those companies which are selling insurance against this event say that an identity is stolen every three seconds, it can't be true. At that rate, we'd all be somebody else by now.
Identity theft has replaced "imitation" as the highest form of flattery.
But what if it were true that this crime is an epidemic? You, dear reader, would be immune. Because, really, who would want to be you? Face it, you are safe from identity theft. Don't flatter yourself.
Identity theft has replaced "imitation" as the highest form of flattery.
But what if it were true that this crime is an epidemic? You, dear reader, would be immune. Because, really, who would want to be you? Face it, you are safe from identity theft. Don't flatter yourself.
STRINGS ATTACHED
If you were going to build a new house, you might hire a architect to design it, then shop the design around to several trusted contractors to get their bids to construct it. You would be looking for the cheapest bid. It would probably be unimportant to you whether the contractor employed union members, or whether the persons working on the job were part of a minority group.
Now, if for some reason, your rich uncle agreed to pay half of the construction costs, you would probably be open to his suggestion that "contractor A" would be hired because she employed only union members. As long as you were confident that the home would be built to your exact specifications, and you were saving 50%, the strings attached to your uncle's contribution would be welcome.
Uncle Sam passes out money in this way. Strings are attached. On construction projects, there may be minority set-asides. There may be requirements that only union members may work on the project, or that a prevailing wage would be paid to tradesmen. While these conditional provisions might drive up the total cost of construction, they allow Uncle Sam to achieve certain social goals, and are acceptable to, say a college that is getting a new classroom building at a discount due to federal contributions.
In short, federal money always comes with strings attached. Well... not always.
When the bank bail-out money was passed out, there were no strings attached. Because of there was a crisis, it was imperative that banks took the money immediately, whether they wanted it or not. To stabilize them. To preserve the entire financial system. And then PNC used theirs to buy Provident Bank.(Not that the feds were opposed to mergers and acquisitions. But they only liked them if it was their idea.) And the big bonuses kept coming, and the retreats to expensive resorts. Then the feds, and the tax-payers, began to think they'd been had. In a come-lately fashion, the strings were attached.
The point is that by passing out money in the form of grants, subsidies, and bail-outs, the federal government has a great power to coerce, and to enforce a social agenda. And this has great importance when it comes to Health Care, because many proponents of the health care reform bills believe that by passing a bill (ANY bill), Americans will have an established RIGHT to health care. This is why some don't care what kind of bill it is. If citizens have a constitutional right to health care, what does this mean in practical terms?
Can a Catholic hospital which accepts federal money in the future be able to deny abortions to anyone? Can a doctor who accepts Medicaid payments decline to refer a patient to an abortion clinic? Can a pharmacist who is self-employed and federally licensed to dispense medicines decline to fill a prescription for birth-control pills as a matter of conscience? Or will these institutions or individuals be coerced into choosing whether to violate religious or ethical beliefs, to violate someone's constitutional right to health care, or to just go out of business?
Now, if for some reason, your rich uncle agreed to pay half of the construction costs, you would probably be open to his suggestion that "contractor A" would be hired because she employed only union members. As long as you were confident that the home would be built to your exact specifications, and you were saving 50%, the strings attached to your uncle's contribution would be welcome.
Uncle Sam passes out money in this way. Strings are attached. On construction projects, there may be minority set-asides. There may be requirements that only union members may work on the project, or that a prevailing wage would be paid to tradesmen. While these conditional provisions might drive up the total cost of construction, they allow Uncle Sam to achieve certain social goals, and are acceptable to, say a college that is getting a new classroom building at a discount due to federal contributions.
In short, federal money always comes with strings attached. Well... not always.
When the bank bail-out money was passed out, there were no strings attached. Because of there was a crisis, it was imperative that banks took the money immediately, whether they wanted it or not. To stabilize them. To preserve the entire financial system. And then PNC used theirs to buy Provident Bank.(Not that the feds were opposed to mergers and acquisitions. But they only liked them if it was their idea.) And the big bonuses kept coming, and the retreats to expensive resorts. Then the feds, and the tax-payers, began to think they'd been had. In a come-lately fashion, the strings were attached.
The point is that by passing out money in the form of grants, subsidies, and bail-outs, the federal government has a great power to coerce, and to enforce a social agenda. And this has great importance when it comes to Health Care, because many proponents of the health care reform bills believe that by passing a bill (ANY bill), Americans will have an established RIGHT to health care. This is why some don't care what kind of bill it is. If citizens have a constitutional right to health care, what does this mean in practical terms?
Can a Catholic hospital which accepts federal money in the future be able to deny abortions to anyone? Can a doctor who accepts Medicaid payments decline to refer a patient to an abortion clinic? Can a pharmacist who is self-employed and federally licensed to dispense medicines decline to fill a prescription for birth-control pills as a matter of conscience? Or will these institutions or individuals be coerced into choosing whether to violate religious or ethical beliefs, to violate someone's constitutional right to health care, or to just go out of business?
TIMING IS EVERYTHING
Know what the secret is to telling a good joke? Timing.
Remember when the $787 billion stimulus bill was passed? We were told that there were many important municipal, state, and federal projects that were "shovel-ready", lacking only financing to upgrade our infrastructure and to create jobs. We were told that the money would go out the door quickly, providing a jump-start to our economy. Really?
Now, it turns out, only a small percentage of the money has been spent. The money will be spent on a schedule that is in sync, strangely enough, with the federal election cycle. More money will be spent as the mid-term elections approach, but most of it will be released in advance of the 2012 presidential election. Timing is everything.
Same is true with the health care reform bill(s) that the democrats are advancing. The taxes on businesses and individuals to pay for the expansion of health care coverage will begin immediately. However, the implementation of most of the "reforms" will be delayed until 2016! How come? Two reasons. First, this allows the "first ten years" of the program to appear inexpensive, because the money being spent in four years (2016-2020) will be spread out over ten (2010-2020). That's government accounting for you. Secondly, President Obama will be able to point to future "benefits" of his health care reforms during his campaign since there will be no evidence at that time - pro or con - that real reform has been achieved. There will be evidence of its expense of the program, but none that the expense has been worth it.
Timing is the secret of telling a good joke. But I don't see any humor in this.
Remember when the $787 billion stimulus bill was passed? We were told that there were many important municipal, state, and federal projects that were "shovel-ready", lacking only financing to upgrade our infrastructure and to create jobs. We were told that the money would go out the door quickly, providing a jump-start to our economy. Really?
Now, it turns out, only a small percentage of the money has been spent. The money will be spent on a schedule that is in sync, strangely enough, with the federal election cycle. More money will be spent as the mid-term elections approach, but most of it will be released in advance of the 2012 presidential election. Timing is everything.
Same is true with the health care reform bill(s) that the democrats are advancing. The taxes on businesses and individuals to pay for the expansion of health care coverage will begin immediately. However, the implementation of most of the "reforms" will be delayed until 2016! How come? Two reasons. First, this allows the "first ten years" of the program to appear inexpensive, because the money being spent in four years (2016-2020) will be spread out over ten (2010-2020). That's government accounting for you. Secondly, President Obama will be able to point to future "benefits" of his health care reforms during his campaign since there will be no evidence at that time - pro or con - that real reform has been achieved. There will be evidence of its expense of the program, but none that the expense has been worth it.
Timing is the secret of telling a good joke. But I don't see any humor in this.
HEALTH CARE REFORM THAT NO ONE WANTS
No one wants the Health Care Reform legislation that is pending a vote in the U.S. Senate. Not a single Republican will vote for it. The extreme left wing of the Democratic Party is very opposed to the senate bill. Howard Dean, Arianna Huffington, and Markos Moulitsas all want the bill to die because, among other things, there is no provision for a public option. But thanks to pay-offs to Senators Landrieu and Nelson, and concessions to Lieberman, the bill will pass with 60 votes in a early morning session on Christmas Eve.
Then what?
The bills passed by the House and Senate will go to a conference committee for "reconciliation". The problem is, the bills are very much different in areas like the public option. Democratic senators, with their 60-vote majority still tenuous, are unlikely to accept a bill which is different than the one they passed. So, Nancy Pelosi has a decision to make. Does she accept the senate bill as written and betray her hard left constituency, or does she thumb her nose at President Obama and sink the whole thing?
Great political drama.
Then what?
The bills passed by the House and Senate will go to a conference committee for "reconciliation". The problem is, the bills are very much different in areas like the public option. Democratic senators, with their 60-vote majority still tenuous, are unlikely to accept a bill which is different than the one they passed. So, Nancy Pelosi has a decision to make. Does she accept the senate bill as written and betray her hard left constituency, or does she thumb her nose at President Obama and sink the whole thing?
Great political drama.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
RIDDLE ME THIS
Here is a crackin'-'em-up riddle that is circulating in Moscow among the members of the Politburo of the former Soviet Union:
Q: Why did the American throw his alarm clock out the window?
A: Because it was a constant reminder of the fast-approaching doom of capitalist imperialism.
Q: Why did the American throw his alarm clock out the window?
A: Because it was a constant reminder of the fast-approaching doom of capitalist imperialism.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
INVESTING IN CD'S
Many investors have had poor results from investing in equities over the past decade, and wish that they had simply invested in CD's instead. CD's offer less risk than equities, and they are readily available. You can compare rates easily, and you can get them down the street, or online.
There are other reasons to invest in compact discs as well. Music will offer you pleasure forever, and in this sense, their value will never decline. (Unless you expose them to sunlight for prolonged periods, or attempt to clean them with Brillo Pads.) And they make great, inexpensive gifts. You can copy them innumerable times for everyone on your Christmas list!
So don't neglect CD's for investment and gift purposes. Burn 'em, baby, burn 'em!
There are other reasons to invest in compact discs as well. Music will offer you pleasure forever, and in this sense, their value will never decline. (Unless you expose them to sunlight for prolonged periods, or attempt to clean them with Brillo Pads.) And they make great, inexpensive gifts. You can copy them innumerable times for everyone on your Christmas list!
So don't neglect CD's for investment and gift purposes. Burn 'em, baby, burn 'em!
GOLD AND SILVER
Just a quick note on this subject. Gold is selling at or near its all-time high. (You can check the current price of gold by using the widget available in the right margin.) Some think that it may go to $2000 or beyond. Others think a bubble is forming, and that if the dollar rallies, the price of gold will decline.
Silver, on the other hand is off its high by about 70%. It may represent a better investment than gold. Some like investing in gold because you can hold it in your hand. OK. You can hold several thousand dollars worth of the stuff in your hand if you want to. If you buy a few thousand dollars worth of silver, you better have some place to put it. Rather than holding the stuff yourself, buying silver through a ETF is probably a better idea. Check out these two on the ETF finder from The Motley Fool on the right margin: CEF or SLV.
Want to invest in a mutual fund? Look at Franklin Gold and Precious Metals - A shares (FKRCX), which invests largely in companies that mine and process gold, palladium, platinum, and silver.
Silver, on the other hand is off its high by about 70%. It may represent a better investment than gold. Some like investing in gold because you can hold it in your hand. OK. You can hold several thousand dollars worth of the stuff in your hand if you want to. If you buy a few thousand dollars worth of silver, you better have some place to put it. Rather than holding the stuff yourself, buying silver through a ETF is probably a better idea. Check out these two on the ETF finder from The Motley Fool on the right margin: CEF or SLV.
Want to invest in a mutual fund? Look at Franklin Gold and Precious Metals - A shares (FKRCX), which invests largely in companies that mine and process gold, palladium, platinum, and silver.
Friday, December 18, 2009
OBAMA'S ELECTION
I think that people voted for Barack Obama in two discreet blocs. Some voted for him because they supported his campaign pledge to "fundamentally transform the United States of America". Others voted for him because he ran as the Anti-Bush. Of these two groups, I think the latter group was the larger, and was decisive in the election.
Historically, after a political party has held the White House for two consecutive terms, the other major party's candidate is elected. This is not always the case (G.H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan), but it is the general rule. Electors generally like "change", if only for the sake of change. And George Bush's unpopularity sealed the deal, especially since the economy was shaky. So a Democratic nominee, regardless of who it was, had a great chance to win; a Republican candidate was almost certain to lose. The platforms and promises of the candidates were less important in this election than their party labels.
Except for that smaller group, who voted for Obama because they did desire to see the institutions of American government fundamentally changed. These people would have voted for him regardless of his party affiliation. Had he run as the candidate of the Know-Nothing Party, or the Whigs, they would have voted for him anyway.
Now, I don't think Obama understands that the two voting blocs I've described are separate groups. I think he mistook his election as an endorsement of his "transformational" platform by everyone who voted for him. Now he finds his popularity sinking a bit, and the polls are showing disapproval of his major policy initiatives in the areas of health care reform and energy policy. This is because the "Anti-Bushers" who voted for him never liked his platform from the start.
But transformation has come. Even if it isn't wanted.
Historically, after a political party has held the White House for two consecutive terms, the other major party's candidate is elected. This is not always the case (G.H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan), but it is the general rule. Electors generally like "change", if only for the sake of change. And George Bush's unpopularity sealed the deal, especially since the economy was shaky. So a Democratic nominee, regardless of who it was, had a great chance to win; a Republican candidate was almost certain to lose. The platforms and promises of the candidates were less important in this election than their party labels.
Except for that smaller group, who voted for Obama because they did desire to see the institutions of American government fundamentally changed. These people would have voted for him regardless of his party affiliation. Had he run as the candidate of the Know-Nothing Party, or the Whigs, they would have voted for him anyway.
Now, I don't think Obama understands that the two voting blocs I've described are separate groups. I think he mistook his election as an endorsement of his "transformational" platform by everyone who voted for him. Now he finds his popularity sinking a bit, and the polls are showing disapproval of his major policy initiatives in the areas of health care reform and energy policy. This is because the "Anti-Bushers" who voted for him never liked his platform from the start.
But transformation has come. Even if it isn't wanted.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
OBAMA WILL
OK, Congress, get this straight: If you won't, he will. If you don't pass Cap and Trade legislation to reduce CO2 emissions, Obama's EPA will reduce them by exercising its regulatory authority. One way or the other, it is "game on".
See the article on this subject from The Heritage Foundation by using the widget in the right-hand margin.
See the article on this subject from The Heritage Foundation by using the widget in the right-hand margin.
AFGHANISTAN
Afghanistan, as I've said before, is largely rubble. There is nothing there but poppy fields. There are no natural resources. The populace is illiterate beyond belief. So why has it become so important? Because Bin-Laden had training camps there, and the 9-11 attacks were launched from there. So Bush attacked, Bin-Laden slipped away, and then we invaded Iraq.
In doing so, it is suggested that Bush took his eye off the ball. Maybe. I think we all would have wanted Bin-Laden killed a long time ago.
But we invaded Iraq, it went badly, there was a Sunni Awakening, then a troop surge, a series of free elections, and finally some hope that a secular democracy can endure there. This is all to the good.
Then the U.S. had an election. All the Democrats ran as the Anti-Bush, and Obama was the anti-est of them all. He promoted the "eye-off-the-ball" argument, called Iraq a war of choice and Afghanistan a war of necessity. Now we have a surge going on there.
I am very much opposed to this war in Afghanistan. I don't know what we are trying to achieve. To prevent the country from becoming again a "safe haven" for terrorists? Aren't there many places in the world that fit this description?
Far better at this point to protect the progress made in Iraq, support stability in Pakistan, and put an end to Iran's nuclear program.
In doing so, it is suggested that Bush took his eye off the ball. Maybe. I think we all would have wanted Bin-Laden killed a long time ago.
But we invaded Iraq, it went badly, there was a Sunni Awakening, then a troop surge, a series of free elections, and finally some hope that a secular democracy can endure there. This is all to the good.
Then the U.S. had an election. All the Democrats ran as the Anti-Bush, and Obama was the anti-est of them all. He promoted the "eye-off-the-ball" argument, called Iraq a war of choice and Afghanistan a war of necessity. Now we have a surge going on there.
I am very much opposed to this war in Afghanistan. I don't know what we are trying to achieve. To prevent the country from becoming again a "safe haven" for terrorists? Aren't there many places in the world that fit this description?
Far better at this point to protect the progress made in Iraq, support stability in Pakistan, and put an end to Iran's nuclear program.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
WELCOME!
Welcome to my new blog! Bookmark this page now before you forget. That way, it will be easy for you to return to it several times each hour so you can be current on the latest in economics and politics. You should, as a first-time visitor, read my legal disclaimer so you know the rules of the road. I'm big on rules, especially as they apply to others.
As a reader, you have the responsibility to comment on my posts. The following are examples of the kinds of comments that I will allow to be posted: "Gee, I never thought of it like that"! "That is really cool!" "You're right again!"
If you enter a comment that does not later appear on the blog, it is because it has been rejected. The kinds of comments that will be rejected are like these: "Man, you really missed the boat on that one." "I already tried that, and it doesn't work". "What's wrong with you?"
So click on the comment button, and let's get this show on the road!
DISCLAIMER
This site is for entertainment purposes only. Because I am not a licensed broker or a certified financial advisor, I will not personally offer actual investment advice, nor endorse any specific financial instrument or investment strategy. Investing involves substantial risk, and you may lose your shirt. Past performance of investments should not be considered to indicate or guarantee future performance. This means that just because someone else got rich, it's no sign you will, too. The ship may have sailed without you.
The accuracy of the information contained in my posts is not warranted in any way. In some cases, it may have been made up. Always use your best judgement as often as possible, if ever. You just never know.
Original content is copyright on the date of posting. You may not copy, reproduce, recompile, decompile, reverse-engineer, distribute, publish, display, modify, or transmit material (except for down-loading or making one hard copy for your own personal, non-commercial use) without the prior express consent of the author, and Major League Baseball.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and are subject to change at any time without notice. So pay attention. All mischaracterizations of any actual persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental and I apologize in advance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)