Click here to go to Madoff.com: http://www.madoff.com/dis/display.asp?id=203&mode=1&home=1&madf=
Ex Nasqaq stock market chairman Bernard Madoff has unofficially admitted to losing over 50 BILLION, with a B, through his illegitimate company, Madoff Investment Securities LLC. He faces up to 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of 5 million.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Obama Appointments
Barack's image as a reformer is being called into question this week following a number of major administration appointments. Hillary Clinton will be our Secretary of State. Timothy Geithner (Treasury Secretary), Lawrence Summers (White House Economic Adviser), and Peter Orszag (Budget Director), who are the most prominent proteges of Robert Rubin, will lead us through the economic hardships that await Barack in January. Eric Holder Jr. will be charged with the task of restoring honor to the DOJ as our next Attorney General. And today the NYTimes reports that Defense Secretary Gates will retain his position for at least one year following inauguration.
The decision to keep Gates on-board shows Barack's commitment to bipartisanship but also his political bravery. Gates is regarded as a pragmatist who has cleaned up the Pentagon since Rumsfeld's resignation, and although he has overseen the last two years of the war in Iraq, he has also been sharply critical of the Bush Administration's handling of military operations there. He is favor of drawing down troops when possible. He also does not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate.
The obvious downside of retaining Gates is that it tarnishes Barack's image as a force for sweeping change to our foreign and military policies. But perhaps just as importantly it will give Barack's critics and skeptics reason to sound the "he's a great speaker but is he really a man of action" alarm. There are certainly other individuals that Barack could have appointed to that critical national security post who would represent the type of dramatic policy shift he advocated during the primary and general elections.
And what is to be said of the appointment of Hillary to be our nation's leading diplomat? Is Barack bringing her in to eliminate her as a political opponent in 2012? Or does he believe that she is the best negotiator that we have to offer? The cliche is true in this case that only time will tell, but it does bother me that while the two former rivals' domestic platforms were similar, Hillary scolded Barack whenever she could for his willingness to engage our supposed "enemies" in political dialogue. We should all hope that they settled those differences during their meeting last week and are ready to work as a unit, with Hillary's words carrying the authority of the Presidency in diplomatic settings.
Whether we are evaluating Hillary or Gates or some of the leaders of former President Clinton's administration that Barack is getting ready to appoint, the same question must be asked: Are they willing to carry out Barack's vision? If they are, we can rest assured that we will see the type of drastic change that we voted for. If they are not ready to be agents of reform, we may all have reason to worry.
Please let me know what you think. Post your comments below.
The decision to keep Gates on-board shows Barack's commitment to bipartisanship but also his political bravery. Gates is regarded as a pragmatist who has cleaned up the Pentagon since Rumsfeld's resignation, and although he has overseen the last two years of the war in Iraq, he has also been sharply critical of the Bush Administration's handling of military operations there. He is favor of drawing down troops when possible. He also does not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate.
The obvious downside of retaining Gates is that it tarnishes Barack's image as a force for sweeping change to our foreign and military policies. But perhaps just as importantly it will give Barack's critics and skeptics reason to sound the "he's a great speaker but is he really a man of action" alarm. There are certainly other individuals that Barack could have appointed to that critical national security post who would represent the type of dramatic policy shift he advocated during the primary and general elections.
And what is to be said of the appointment of Hillary to be our nation's leading diplomat? Is Barack bringing her in to eliminate her as a political opponent in 2012? Or does he believe that she is the best negotiator that we have to offer? The cliche is true in this case that only time will tell, but it does bother me that while the two former rivals' domestic platforms were similar, Hillary scolded Barack whenever she could for his willingness to engage our supposed "enemies" in political dialogue. We should all hope that they settled those differences during their meeting last week and are ready to work as a unit, with Hillary's words carrying the authority of the Presidency in diplomatic settings.
Whether we are evaluating Hillary or Gates or some of the leaders of former President Clinton's administration that Barack is getting ready to appoint, the same question must be asked: Are they willing to carry out Barack's vision? If they are, we can rest assured that we will see the type of drastic change that we voted for. If they are not ready to be agents of reform, we may all have reason to worry.
Please let me know what you think. Post your comments below.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Pursuit of Power
In this election we have two candidates who are pursing different policies and visions for our country, but we also have two individuals who are employing contrasting methods in their pursuit of power.
Every human being seeks to both understand and influence the world he lives in, whether through politics or another medium. Obama and McCain are no different. But if we associate, as writer George Sotos has, the pursuit of knowledge with the cognitive function of the mind and the pursuit of influence with the manipulative function, we can detect a valid and crucial distinction between the campaigns and the candidates running them.
Obama’s campaign has been guilty of subtle “untruths”, such as using quotes out of context, but in my opinion, which is all this entry is, Obama has conducted a campaign which reflects a dedicated pursuit of knowledge and a desire to inform the American people about the issues they face. He seems to me to be genuinely interested in educating the public so that we may be able to steer our government and our lives in a positive direction. He has aspirations to shape America and world events, as each President and Presidential hopeful must, but he is a cognitive thinker first and works within the bounds of logical connections between facts and events.
McCain, on the other hand, has engaged in a form of electoral politics dominated by the manipulative function. He has identified, time and time again, the desires of the electorate, and then has sought to shape the facts so that they correspond to those desires. Outcome first, facts second.
This technique was on display most recently this past week as he attempted to position himself as the Maverick crusader who saved the economy. He identified the desire of the American people for economic stability (in this case via a 700 billion dollar injection from the Treasury), and then suspended his campaign and launched a media blitz in an attempt to contort the facts regarding how the bill was passed. His objective was to make it seem as though he led Congress through the process of getting the bill passed, when in fact his position on the legislation was ambiguous throughout.
The technique backfired badly. In the House, his own party rejected the proposal and in the process, made a mockery of McCain surrogates who appeared on talk shows before the vote to proclaim another victory in vision and leadership for the 72 year old.
So, will this latest failure of Carl Rove style, “do anything to win” politics persuade McCain and future Republican nominees to focus on the facts first and the potential influence second? Not a chance! But at the very least it gives Obama more ammunition on the economy while basically wiping out McCain’s illusory, “pro-regulation” arsenal. Perceptive voters may also see in the episode an example of McCain’s erratic governing style and of Obama’s calm under pressure.
Also, not to be overlooked, we now know that McCain, in his old age, is completely incapable of multi-tasking.
Every human being seeks to both understand and influence the world he lives in, whether through politics or another medium. Obama and McCain are no different. But if we associate, as writer George Sotos has, the pursuit of knowledge with the cognitive function of the mind and the pursuit of influence with the manipulative function, we can detect a valid and crucial distinction between the campaigns and the candidates running them.
Obama’s campaign has been guilty of subtle “untruths”, such as using quotes out of context, but in my opinion, which is all this entry is, Obama has conducted a campaign which reflects a dedicated pursuit of knowledge and a desire to inform the American people about the issues they face. He seems to me to be genuinely interested in educating the public so that we may be able to steer our government and our lives in a positive direction. He has aspirations to shape America and world events, as each President and Presidential hopeful must, but he is a cognitive thinker first and works within the bounds of logical connections between facts and events.
McCain, on the other hand, has engaged in a form of electoral politics dominated by the manipulative function. He has identified, time and time again, the desires of the electorate, and then has sought to shape the facts so that they correspond to those desires. Outcome first, facts second.
This technique was on display most recently this past week as he attempted to position himself as the Maverick crusader who saved the economy. He identified the desire of the American people for economic stability (in this case via a 700 billion dollar injection from the Treasury), and then suspended his campaign and launched a media blitz in an attempt to contort the facts regarding how the bill was passed. His objective was to make it seem as though he led Congress through the process of getting the bill passed, when in fact his position on the legislation was ambiguous throughout.
The technique backfired badly. In the House, his own party rejected the proposal and in the process, made a mockery of McCain surrogates who appeared on talk shows before the vote to proclaim another victory in vision and leadership for the 72 year old.
So, will this latest failure of Carl Rove style, “do anything to win” politics persuade McCain and future Republican nominees to focus on the facts first and the potential influence second? Not a chance! But at the very least it gives Obama more ammunition on the economy while basically wiping out McCain’s illusory, “pro-regulation” arsenal. Perceptive voters may also see in the episode an example of McCain’s erratic governing style and of Obama’s calm under pressure.
Also, not to be overlooked, we now know that McCain, in his old age, is completely incapable of multi-tasking.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
I'm a Fundamental and So Are You?
John McCain has once again found within himself the ability to morph into an entirely different candidate. Just when you think he might settle on one identity, he slips your grasp, only to pop-up minutes later wearing a new mask and touting a new slogan. First he was the experienced candidate. Then he was the Maverick. Then he was the candidate for change. This time he came out of the phone booth as the barrel-chested, pro-regulation, greed fighting machine; an image he obviously believes appeals to some part of his delusional base.
After 26 years of being consistently and at time even painstakingly anti-regulation, John woke up this morning, looked himself in the mirror and said, "What the heck. What could one day of sane economic principles really do to hurt my chances?" And the answer of course is nothing. This obvious populist pandering will do nothing to harm his chances unless voters start to care about characteristics like honesty, consistency and reliability in their leaders. Most people who do care about those traits are now either firmly in Obama's camp or making the long trek from the outer reaches of the far Right.
And while Barack was making speeches outlining, in detail, his plan for getting our economy back on track, what was McCain doing? Two things: burying his head in the sand by calling for the establishment of a committee and spewing bullshit about Fundamentals.
The former is less insulting to our intelligence as voters than the latter. He should be embarrassed by his inability to offer clear and substantive recommendations to stem this recession. Calling for a commission to be established instead of standing up and leading is a perfect example of what we could expect from a President McCain who is out of touch with reality and therefore unable to address it effectively. The man can't use a computer and can't text, how can we expect him to guide us to safe ground in the 21st century?
Regarding the second activity that John's been dabbling in - spewing bullshit to cover his ass - he's been repeating this line about how "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" since his campaign began. Barack cited an independent study in his last speech in Colorado which found 16 instances in what McCain has used the line. And now that it has become painfully obvious to any breathing organism on the planet that our economy's core is crumbling, what does McCain do? The only thing he can do; twist his rhetoric. Reality, the son-of-a-gun, had reared its ugly head and stuck its tongue out at him as if to say "You'll never escape me, no matter how hard you try."
So we've now learned from John that the "fundamentals" of the economy are not to be judged by looking at the performance of Wall St. or the international markets or our national debt. Nope. According to John, to see how strong the fundamentals of our economy are all the American worker needs is a mirror. Because we, the employed American citizens, are the fundamentals that John's been talking about this whole time!
How stupid are we?! All this time we've been worrying about Freddie and Fannie and Merrill and Lehman when all we needed to do was hit the bench press, do some squats and then flex. We are strong! We are the economy! The economy is strong! Screw work, I'm going to the gym to get my country back on track!
It's truly a shame that it's come to this. One candidate is out there offering solutions to our worst economic crisis in 70 years while the other is flattering the collective ego of delusional citizens with nonsensical, two-faced remarks.
And they're dead even in the polls. Simply terrifying.
After 26 years of being consistently and at time even painstakingly anti-regulation, John woke up this morning, looked himself in the mirror and said, "What the heck. What could one day of sane economic principles really do to hurt my chances?" And the answer of course is nothing. This obvious populist pandering will do nothing to harm his chances unless voters start to care about characteristics like honesty, consistency and reliability in their leaders. Most people who do care about those traits are now either firmly in Obama's camp or making the long trek from the outer reaches of the far Right.
And while Barack was making speeches outlining, in detail, his plan for getting our economy back on track, what was McCain doing? Two things: burying his head in the sand by calling for the establishment of a committee and spewing bullshit about Fundamentals.
The former is less insulting to our intelligence as voters than the latter. He should be embarrassed by his inability to offer clear and substantive recommendations to stem this recession. Calling for a commission to be established instead of standing up and leading is a perfect example of what we could expect from a President McCain who is out of touch with reality and therefore unable to address it effectively. The man can't use a computer and can't text, how can we expect him to guide us to safe ground in the 21st century?
Regarding the second activity that John's been dabbling in - spewing bullshit to cover his ass - he's been repeating this line about how "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" since his campaign began. Barack cited an independent study in his last speech in Colorado which found 16 instances in what McCain has used the line. And now that it has become painfully obvious to any breathing organism on the planet that our economy's core is crumbling, what does McCain do? The only thing he can do; twist his rhetoric. Reality, the son-of-a-gun, had reared its ugly head and stuck its tongue out at him as if to say "You'll never escape me, no matter how hard you try."
So we've now learned from John that the "fundamentals" of the economy are not to be judged by looking at the performance of Wall St. or the international markets or our national debt. Nope. According to John, to see how strong the fundamentals of our economy are all the American worker needs is a mirror. Because we, the employed American citizens, are the fundamentals that John's been talking about this whole time!
How stupid are we?! All this time we've been worrying about Freddie and Fannie and Merrill and Lehman when all we needed to do was hit the bench press, do some squats and then flex. We are strong! We are the economy! The economy is strong! Screw work, I'm going to the gym to get my country back on track!
It's truly a shame that it's come to this. One candidate is out there offering solutions to our worst economic crisis in 70 years while the other is flattering the collective ego of delusional citizens with nonsensical, two-faced remarks.
And they're dead even in the polls. Simply terrifying.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Obama's Time to Hit Hard - "They broke it. We'll fix it"
The Freddie/Fannie, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers debacles may be Barack's best chance to hit McCain where it hurts. Let's list the possible avenues for an Obama/Biden offensive on the economy:
The crisis:
McCain doesn't know much about the economy, according to him:
Barack on confronting the economic crisis:
- McCain has been avidly anti-regulation ("I am always for less regulation" - WSJ in March) and anti-oversight for 20+ years
- McCain has supported GOP economic policy over the past eight years
- McCain has been an influential member of the party that over eight years has taken our thriving economy and driven it into recession
- McCain has stated countless times (see video below) that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong", and CONTINUES TO DO SO!
- (But the McCain camp just released an ad saying that the economy is in crisis. Contradictory, two-faced and typical.)
- Fundamentals of our economy: Unemployment highest its been in recent history; gas prices over 4$ per gallon for first time and projected to rise; soaring food prices; enormous and growing debt with China; downfall of 4 American giants (Freddie, Fannie, Lehman, Merrill), billions of borrowed dollars a month spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.
- McCain is on record as saying "I am not an expert on Wall St., I am not an expert on some of this stuff", as well as "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." (I love and miss Tim Russert, may he rest in peace)
- This week Wall St. suffered its worst losses since the days following 9/11
- It's difficult for McCain to understand "tough times". He's insulated from them by 7 homes and his wife's millions.
The crisis:
McCain doesn't know much about the economy, according to him:
Barack on confronting the economic crisis:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
