Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Why McCain lost the debate

I took the weekend without any news to really think over the debates. My initial opinion was McCain did well, but as time went on and I was able to think over the entire debate my opinion has changed. I've to see credible polls. I expect they will come soon.
I did watch a little news right after the debate. On Fox it was a split decision 2 for McCain and 2 for Obama. So I switched to CNN and MSNBC. On MSN they were saying McCain belittled Obama and was arrogant. Sure McCain was in every country Obama talked about, but I don't think that is arrogant. So I changed to CNN. They were doing fact verification. The first one sided with McCain. The second topic sided with McCain, but the presenter still used Obama's talking points to support Obama as being right. I turned it off and waited.
So where do I think McCain went wrong.
I don't think he was prepared for an economic debate at a Foreign policy debate. It was put in there as part of globalization or some farce of story. I believe this was specifically done to help Obama in an area is was weak by changing the topic of the debate. As underhanded as that was McCain did not do well.
He focused on ear marks and Obama hammered him. Where John didn't go, but should have was Energy Independence. It will create jobs and reduce prices which are great for the economy. Its an economic vision for the future and he clearly beats Obama on this issue - people support it in large numbers. But McCain dropped the ball.
He could also tie this to Foreign policy and America's security, which are topics that he is strong in. It would have brought it all together. A coup would have been to say he supports drilling in Alaska! But he didn't. His energy policy statement was weak and short lived. It didn't really sound different from Obama.
So at best he held is own at the beginning. At the end he clearly won. He was expected to win that section so it has no benefit in the polls. Garrison and Rush said made some fun of this statement that winning when you are expected to win doesn't help. Well it doesn't hurt but it doesn't help. Polls already have built in that McCain will win the Foreign Policy debate. So you don't get a change. You could get some change if Obama made a major mistake in that area. Otherwise, it met there expectations, already in the polls. For everyone hoping that McCain would go for it, I don't think they saw it.
When it does come to the economy debate, McCain needs to get his message down and Energy is all he has.
BTW - The top 9 fastest growing companies in America were all energy related. Even in a down economy. Leverage that to create more jobs in energy and get people working in good paying jobs. Keep oil revenues in America while taking it from people who hate us. Seems so simple.

Back to the bailout: Updated

Who is the bailout really for? When you watch the global markets you can see evidence of what I am saying in prior posts. The world markets are shaken at the idea of no bailout agreement. Why? Because they benefit from the bailout and they are hurt from no bailout. I think the President and the Congress have done a poor job explaining how this helps the American tax payer. It helps a lot of other countries who have invested in American assets. But that is the risk they took. We are still bailing out rich people and main street expense.
Wizbang has a good article on another way to spend the 700 billion. Pay off 50% of the outstanding mortgages in America! That would help consumers.
What about waving the bank penalties for missed payments until loans could be restructured. I see rates for 30 year mortgages at 6%. Historically still low. It would have to be cheaper for the Fed to pay closing costs on revised plans even if they pay a point than the 700 Billion they are talking about now. And if they say $700B, its a Trillion.
The Fed could lower rates to provide an incentive to lenders. It could help restructure loans through rates as well.
The activity is more about politics than helping Americans - or even American Taxpayers. Realizing and being respectful that they are not the same group of people.
Extremely disturbing is that Dodd is not forcibly removed from being involved at all, that he doesn't have the ethical backbone to remove himself for conflict of interest.
McCain touches on the issue in this ad:

I've posted before that he received the most money from F&F with a link below to the stats, Obama was number 2. Dodd messed it up and now we let him sit in there to help fix it, or is just covering up what he did wrong?

Update: On CNN - No way. Economist explanation of why the bailout is bad:

Pelosi - idiot or brilliant?

There was just too much news to comment on and of instead of a long post, I think its enough to say that Pelosi is an idiot.
She needs to go. She insulted Republicans in a cheap shot before the vote, then couldn't pull the votes from her own party. Over 90 voted against her. Then she blamed Republicans for being handful of votes short.
What more can you say about that. Idiot.


She's brilliant - Because she canned it, and stuck Republicans with the blame.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

McCain required for Bail Out - Who's important now

The fact that Democratics have said they won't sign a bill without McCain's approval or his vote proves McCain's leadership. McCain came out with his plan first. Obama had to follow with his plan. So Obama's plan could only be reviewed in light and comparison to the already existing McCain plan. Note that people still think Obama would be better for the economy, yet he shows no leadership.
Sick is Dodd out talking about how it was the administration's fault, while Bush and McCain tried to add over site while Dodd was taking Bribes to kill the legislation.
Bush proposed legislation in 2003, Dems shot it down. 2005 McCain proposed legislation and Dodd personally killed it. That needs to be on TV.

Dodd says taxpayer getting helped out by the bail out

Is that guy crazy? How are we the tax payer getting 'helped out' by the government taking 700 Billion of our dollars and giving it to someone else. If I buy you dinner, do you say your helping me out, because you let me spend my money on your dinner??
That is crazy. We aren't getting 'helped out' we are footing the bill!

The list everyone should see:
List of who got the money

Looks like the price to buy Dodd was $165,000 and now its costing us 1 Billion. I heard that 700 number but really its the government, round up.

McCain still a stand up guy

How does he do it? McCain got bashed by the Clinton campaign and he shows up to see Bill in person, while Obama does the telecast. I never really appreciated McCain crossing the aisle like he does. It always seems like he gets taken advantage of, or used as a patsy. In this case he seems to gone out of his to do more than his competitor and shown himself as a leader above politics - or at least capable of it.

Bush gains a point??

This was interesting:

Who would have thought Bush could gain a point in approval with the economy tanking. Goes to show you that with horrid performance of Democratics on the Hill, they can make Bush look good.
Congressional approval is on the rise too. This is very interesting. Using real clear politics, congress had it a low 15% approval in recent polls but has climbed up to 18%.
Now I'm just saying. If my co-workers game me a 185 job approval rating, I think I'd be fired. Why can we fire these guys? Or at least not let them run again. Who keeps voting for these bums?

The discussion not taking place with the bail outs

I was listening to the radio today and an economist said this issue with the housing crisis could not be predicted. He was wrong. I was fortunate today to be able to call in and actually be heard. There are some major fallacies being spread around right now that we should address.
The first is that this could not be predicted. This was predicted, but people didn't want to listen. It was done quite well more than 10 years ago. Maybe the problem is that we've known so long, that we have forgotten. The issue with housings rise and fall has always been about the population distribution. The enormous size of the baby boomer generation drove prices up as this segment bought more homes. Closer to retirement they bought two homes. Speculators took advantage and bought a lot of homes. Now we have more too many homes and not enough buyers. The point to the prediction myth is that the size of the baby boomer population and its impact on the rise and fall of housing prices was predicted. Second is that if you are making bad loans, where you don't check if people even have jobs, how can you say you don't expect their to be a problem with bankruptcy in the future.
The falling prices is because of bad loans. The falling prices are because of a drop in demand. Supply and demand drive prices. There simply are not enough buyers in the market.
They took advantage of the public. If you ever bought a house you know that you have to sign 6 forms saying you read all the forms. Unfortunately a lot of people were sold risky loans they couldn't afford. I agree that poor practices lead to the people being approved for loans they should not have qualified for. On one hand, people should know better. On the other hand, they don't. We shouldn't bail out banks that make bad loans and sell them to people who can't afford them, essentially rewarding them for bad behavior. People have to be responsible for the debt they take on.
Its no ones fault and no one tried to do anything is a myth as well. McCain tried to put in legislation, late in this case is better than never. It was blocked by Dodd, because he was taking what I will call bribes from these institutions. They were significant campaign contributions that compelled him to act in the best interest of the Fannie/Freddie and not the American people. Most American's I think would translate that to a bribe. I think worthy of jail time and expulsion from his position as a representative of the people. He clearly is not representing the people.
Bush said in his address that the market would come back. That is normally true. Its not here at least not for a very long time. A significant change in immigration policy should have already taken place to deal with this problem, but that time has passed. There simply are not enough people in the home buying demographic to buy all the homes on the market, or the homes about to be on the market. So let me repeat that for you. Its not coming back, at least not the way most Americans think of a 7% per year increase in valuations. The best we can hope for now, is to hit bottom, assess the damage and begin to deal with the excess inventory. As baby boomers keep retiring and down sizing, or just dieing who will buy the homes? There simply aren't enough people to buy them all. Some will have to go unsold, or prices will have to drop so far, that people who normally would be able to buy a home, become eligible buyers.
So why do I think the Bush Administration really cares about this? Its not because they are looking out for the tax payer. I believe the real reason is that China has invested heavily in these American entities and stands to loose up to 10% of their GDP if this were to collapse. I'm talking purely housing here, not the AIG problem, which is somewhat different. If this collapses and China looses their money they invest in our economy, that will certainly have less money to invest, but the confidence will be gone and they will take their money somewhere else. This is where it gets somewhat complicated. America has a lot of debt. It can't exist without selling and feeding that debt. China holds they debt. Think about it as owing the loan shark, only in this case China is the Shark, America the Bait to be eaten and the tax payer who is setup to pay the bill. They don't want to talk about this topic because it exposes how driven by foreign interest we have become. It also points to the global collapse. So basically the tax payer in this case is bailing out other countries more than our own. Which would impact us, but they aren't being straight with the American people.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The towers should be built by now

Bush has had a few years to leave a legacy and he certainly left one. For a conservative I'm pretty on the hard on guy, but he makes Clinton look good, and you have to dislike him for that. One thing Bush could have done was put an enormous amount of energy and money into rebuilding the towers. I know there was a lot to consider, and blah, blah, blah! Do you think Reagan didn't think is complicated when he said, "tear down this wall." or when Kennedy said we are going to the moon. They did those things and we can't put up a building!

It ticks me off. Everyday they are down the skyline is broken and the terrorist still have hope, a glimmer of past success. Then the Iranian President comes here and smugly waves his hand at us. I wonder if he want to the site or just looked at the skyline and smiled. How much better would it have been if he came here and a shadow was cast upon him by the enormity and grandeur of the tallest building in the world. But instead those buildings are being built in other countries.
We should have built that taller. They should be done. They should have been the craftsmanship of American pride and resiliency. Instead it will be another task left undone by this President.

Terrorists take my advice

Here's a note to the Terrorists.

I know you are on the internet because I've seen your posts. So pass this along. Next time your pissed off at America, wack a politician. Americans won't miss them. At most you could only upset 48% of the people. Really think about it. America is so polarized and filled with hate speech for politicians that most would think it was justice not a crime.
How many people do you know that could answer this question - Has the Pentagon finished reconstruction from 9/11. I asked 5 people that quickly. One said, oh yeah they hit the Pentagon! College educated people. They don't care about the politicians, they don't agree with them most of the time. You hate America for its policies that Politicians create. So put your energy where it belongs.

Here's the thing. You knock down a building with Americans in it and they don't get scared. They might for a little while, but really the get made. So you knock down the building and we knock down a country or two. People are ticked off here and if you give them someone to hate more than politicians you're going to bite the bullet. You might think they are weak and don't have the will to fight and no doubt the lefties are wimps. But the 38% of conservatives will still pick up a gun or press the button on a missile to wipe your landscape from the map. Why cause all that trouble?

Ok for those of you reading at home, really do you remember that the Pentagon actually was attacked on 9/11. The presidential candidates were in NY again. Standing on empty ground. The memorial at the Pentagon site is already built. Hardly any mention of it. So does anyway really think Americans would care enough to go to war if it were politicians that were killed on 9/11?


I wanted to call this blog BushWacked but like everything on the internet, its already taken. As first post here it still sets the tone.

I am a conservative, registered independent, likely to vote libertarian. Why would I waste my vote you ask? Because I can't bring my self to vote for Obama, but it might be best if he wins. I'm counting on him doing for the Republican party what Clinton did and Bush couldn't. If he is as bad as I fully expect he will be, Republicans will rally and take back the House and Senate just like they did with Clinton. Obama will prove to much worse than Clinton. Sure he might not pick up the girls at the office like Clinton, but certainly is left winged agenda will get him in so much trouble, the economy is sure is to tank with his economic policy that Americans will be in full force come mid-term elections. That's what we want really.

It ensures checks and balances while still getting work done. The economy is proven to better in this scenario and that's what we need. We have a democratic congress for a while now, and they have done absolutely nothing, expect make the Bush problems worse. The President always gets the blame, so lets blame a democrat. Then have a conservative congress that actually try to spend OUR money wisely.

You'd like to think that Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency would leave to massive cuts in government spending. Unfortunately I think Bush went on another drinking binge while the cameras weren't watch and he let them spend as much money as they wanted on anything wanted with no vetoes for years!! His total irresponsibility to take any leadership for fiscal policy has doomed us to economic crisis and the likes of Obama. There has been a lot of talk of Reagan, these days. What would Reagan have done? He wouldn't spent money for guns and butter. He manned up and made the hard decisions that Bush never could. He knew the only way to fix the Carter economy was to induce a recession, take it on the chin and promote policies of growth and recovery. Bush on the other hand has been afraid of the economy his entire presidency. I wonder if he still hear "Its the economy stupid" over and over in his head. He has done everything he could think of to buy a positive economy, but for what? He spent the wealth of a generation on propping up an economy that is in a natural downward cycle. You can't avoid the cycle but that's a different blog. And so in the end, Bush had some good years of economic growth, but its a failure, the DOW is right back where it started when he took office and Bush is a total failure who destroyed the GOP.