Archive for McCain

Three’s Company: Obama, Fannie and Freddie

Posted in Contributed, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 13, 2008 by raingeg

Many investors are nervous because of the current uncertainty in the stock market, and the general lack of liquidity in the financial markets. Now, however, is NOT the time to sell. There are some unique buying opportunities in a market that has lost 20% of its value.  If you can avoid the herd mentality fueled by the same type of speculation that caused this crisis, there are good profits to be gained in the future – if you are prudent and patient. The American economy is still the strongest in the world. Success from Wall Street to Main Street, however, may have something to do with who is elected President in 2008.

The argument put forth by the Obama campaign and his media minions is that John McCain and the GOP have caused the decline in the economy and the stock market. Their endless “blame Bush” mantra seems to apply here. They want you to forget that lower incremental tax rates for individuals and businesses, as advocated by the GOP, have increased revenues to the Treasury dramatically since 2003, and are a worldwide example of successful tax policy.

The Democrats endeavor to inoculate Senator Obama from any connection to any of the current market volatility. They want you to believe that Obama and his liberal economic brain trust will change America for the better and make the improvements needed to correct the economy.  Yet Barack Obama wants to raise corporate taxes and make it more difficult for small businesses to reinvest in their own operations.  Obama’s tax policy will further slow our economy by confiscating more money from investors and decreasing liquidity in the market.

In addition, the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a result of crooked accountants cooking the books to make their bundled loan packages look like profitable risks to the Wall Street banks.  These same officials got away with their crimes by lavishing money on mostly Democratic legislators, including Obama, who was the second highest recipient of Fannie/Freddie money in Congress.

Obama looked the other way when these same executives opened their golden parachutes and took off with taxpayer money.  The way he tells the story, it seems like it was everybody else’s responsibility, just not the Democrats in Congress. Now Obama and his friends are trying to cover their tracks and pointing fingers at the one man who called to reign in the government sponsored entities – John McCain.

Senator McCain has advocated for stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — dating back to 2006. As a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, McCain supported legislation that would have curbed the greed and corruption surrounding the subprime mortgage market.  This bill was killed by Ranking Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee.

Is it any wonder why Obama would try to deflect attention from his own connections to this crisis?   James Johnson, who headed his VP selection Committee, was Fannie CEO and “Subprime Mortgage Queen” Penny Pritzer, Obama’s campaign Finance Chair, were both not only involved in this debacle but directly responsible for creating the situations that began the sub prime lending schemes and caused the mortgage collapse.

The real problem, however, is more insidious. Since the mid 1990’s, Democrats have used home ownership as a club to gain political advantage from minority groups and low-income voters, with whom they sought to curry favor across America. The Democrats, collaborating with community organizing groups like ACORN, beat up bankers, regulators, and whomever else, in order to drive their dangerous political agenda.

The result was that many hundreds of thousands of loans were made to first time homeowners with no chance of repayment. Bankers across America suffered with excessive delinquency, which resulted in the secondary mortgage industry being wrecked by these politically connected executives selfishly intent on gaining voters for their Democrat candidates. Meanwhile, the Democrats running Fannie and Freddie made untold millions. These are undisputed facts.

We face an election for the United States Presidency on November 4th and we’re still faced with serious questions about Obama’s fiscal policy.  Most importantly, can Americans trust the Democrat party to play fair in the future, on the Housing issue, or any other partisan issue, when for over a decade they only played in a way that benefited them personally and politically?  Should Barack Obama be trusted with proposing tax policy, when he has voted nine times against lowering the capital gains tax rate, seven times against implementing tax incentives for small businesses, six times against lowering the estate tax and three times against repealing a more than decade-old increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.

When you are looking at your 401-K, or IRA, why would you ever entrust your future to Barack Obama and the Democrats?  It’s possible that the rest of the marketplace, now seeing the real possibility of an Obama Presidency, may be bailing from the market. Many observers are beginning to opine that the recent market issues have a lot to do with a lack of confidence in a potential Obama presidency. The handwriting is on the wall, and the future looks grim if Obama wins in November.

-Bruce Ash


My Take on the Debate

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , on October 8, 2008 by raingeg

I love the show 24, there is something about it, mostly the way it draw’s you in and makes you want to watch it for a day straight. However I don’t see myself in the near future watching any of the seasons on DVD because it seems like a waste of time. That’s how I feel about the debates, there is nothing new in them. Both McCain and Obama continue saying the same thing and as a decided voter I don’t need to hear about these issues again. I guess if there is an undecided voter out there, hearing what Obama and McCain stand for again will be helpful, but its hard for me to fathom an undecided voter when the information needed to make a decision is so accessible these day‘s.

So now for my take on the debate, a debate that was void of anything new for me to write about. At first me and my buddy were listening to it in the car and McCain was not doing to well. As time went on and the subject matter changed form the economy to national security he picked up the pace a little bit. Although, at times, I did find myself answering the questions for John, actually, more like screaming at the TV as if I were watching the world series or the super bowl.

All I can say is that McCain dominated Obama on the strategic military operations part of the debate. Anytime he was talking about what we need to do on any of the fronts in the war on terror he knew what he was talking about and that was good. During the economic portion of the debate, as my friend so eloquently put it, he sounded like he was going to cry. It might not have been that bad, but he really didn’t say to much new stuff. He didn’t do in that portion what he did do in the military portion of the debate, which was attack Obama more. The problem is that no matter what he say’s he’s going against the wind, because the cards are stacked in Obama’s favor when it comes to economic issues. McCain needs to use his temper, and find a bat, because he is in dire need of some homerun’s in the coming weeks and in the next debate. He cannot afford to sound like the same old McCain from the first two debates and he needs to create a new stump speech, because this one is getting old and over used.

As for Obama’s part in the speech, I think that he looked weak during the foreign policy area, as I‘ve said, but he did better than McCain in the economic portion. I think that if McCain spoke about the economy as strategically as he does about the military he would be doing a lot better than he is now. Unfortunately, for McCain this economic crisis happened at the completely wrong time, and the completely right time for Obama.

Overall I don’t feel any different about this election because of this debate. I don’t think there was a clear winner as far as the actual debate goes. The main reason for the lack of a winner is the fact that nothing new came out of it.  McCain did have a good line or two every now and then, there was also a time where proudly walked over to his chair sending Obama a “what’ve you got now” signal. But a couple of good lines and a confident walk won’t get anyone anywhere except confidently walking to the closest phone to give Barack Obama a call congratulating him on his victory.

McCain, you said you were going to take the gloves off, take them off. Blogger’s, Sarah Palin and talk radio hosts can’t do all of your bidding for you. You need to fight back because right now things don’t look to good for you sir.

It should be noted that even though I believe McCain is down in America and the polls substantiate that claim, I’m not entirely convinced that this race is over. We are still just as divided as we were in 2000 and in 2004, both very close races. And in politics a month is a long time.

McCain’s Sacrifice and Obama’s Mistake

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , on September 9, 2008 by raingeg

In an earlier post I said that McCain was hurt during the primary season by further right individuals, because he was not one of them. On the other hand Obama was loved by nearly every far left man, woman and child out there. There wasn’t a college campus at last semesters end that wasn’t bubbling over with excitement because Obama was the likely nominee.

I think the primary should’ve been about sacrifice for Obama, something that his campaign didn’t do when he was running against Hillary. They both ran on far left progressive ideas. Obama and Clinton had to fight to the death, and in the end, whoever won that fight would have to trek back up a large mountain to the political-center.

McCain made the right move, he scarified his base in the primary election. Obama was not presenting himself as a centrist, he was pandering to the far left anti-bush crowd, they made a lot of noise, but that’s not America. McCain on the other hand, didn’t really have to pander to the center-right crowd because he is center-right. He won the nomination on the authentic premise that he has the ability to work with everybody in congress and I think that he can do that.

The second right move that McCain made was picking a good running mate. He had to pick someone that would energize the conservative base, because he had to neglect that further right base in order to win the nomination. And because of this so-called “deep bench” on the republican side, with people like Romney and especially Bobby Jindal, he could pick a person that would stir up the pot. Enter Sarah Palin.

For weeks before Obama picked his running mate Republicans were on edge, because an Obama-Clinton ticket would’ve been a bad thing for the Republicans. I remember I was in a restaurant when it was broadcast, at about 10 p.m. my time (another bad mistake on Obama‘s part), that Biden was Obama’s running mate and I shrugged my shoulders and harbored no fear. Republicans were actually happy that Obama had picked Biden and I don’t blame them. I said earlier that I didn’t know that much about him, but I found out after about 15 minutes on Youtube that he was no threat at all.

The third good move that McCain made, that Obama messed up on, was picking a running mate without a critical history of the parties nominee. In other words, I think Romney was probably always off the table solely because he ran against McCain in the primary. There would’ve been to much material that the Obama campaign could use against a McCain-Romney ticket because of all the bickering that took place between Romney and McCain. Obama picked Biden who ran against him in the primary and Biden used a lot of the same lines that the Republicans are using today with regard to Obama’s readiness to be the President.

And now we have do deal with the Democrats new line, that Palin is only “a heartbeat away” from being President, as if McCain is going to drop over dead or he only has a few more of those heart beats left. This is still a play on McCain’s age and I doubt it will work. The Obama campaign is attacking Palin far more than the McCain campaign is attacking Biden and this can only mean one thing, she is a threat.

Obama made a mistake by following the far left cries for change and not seeing that there is a sleeping giant in the middle of this country. Its called America and it clings to religion, because when push comes to shove, they look to God for support, not the United States Government.

Which Candidate Will “Hook” The People

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , on September 1, 2008 by raingeg

This country is divided, its no secret, as of now the Gallup numbers keep shifting and the electoral college numbers are fairly tight. This election will be chosen by that 10% that is undecided.

Your choice, is a fairly left-wing progressive Democrat Senator in Barack Obama and a more right of center Republican in John McCain. Both of the positions that these men hold, have, or currently are, hurting them in some way. For John McCain, his more centrist positions hurt him a lot in the primary season, mostly with further right conservatives. Proof is Rush (one of the most listened to talk radio hosts) and his push for people to vote for Hillary in the primary. Another example, Ann Coulter and her statement that she will not vote for McCain if he is the candidate. But Republicans proved that they wanted someone closer to the center this time around. McCain’s new hope is that by adding a socially conservative woman on to the ticket he can garner some of that further right vote. Sen. Obama on the other hand, ran as a further left progressive candidate against Hillary Clinton and is now having to move himself towards the center to garner the majority of that undecided 10%. It will be interesting to see what the more centrist and slightly more conservative Clinton supporters do in light of McCain’s new running mate. These are voters that were already on edge about Obama and I think they will definitely have to think about their vote before election day.

The 10% reminds me of the scene in the Steven Spielberg’s 1991 movie “Hook” with Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman. To set the scene, Peter  “Pan” Banning (Robin Williams) has just arrived in Neverland and the lost boys are trying to see if he is the real Peter Pan, because by now he’s 30 years older than the last time he was in Neverland. Anyway, a large group of lost boys run back and forth as the other lost boys vie for either Peter or the new leader Rufio (Dante Basco). They run back and forth many times until they settle on the idea that Peter really is “The Pan”.

The undecided 10% is going to do the same thing that the lost boys did in Hook. They will run back and forth between the two candidates and try to decide who the real president is. It should be noted that the circumstance is a little different in real life, because as we know neither Obama or McCain have ever been president, where as in the movie Pan was coming back to reclaim the right to his sword, these men are just trying to win.

But nonetheless, there are some uncanny similarities between the two candidates and the characters in the movie. Take Peter Banning for example, he was a lawyer like Sen. Obama. Mr. Banning and McCain have the age issue in common. Like McCain, Rufio comes off as the more pro-active one when it comes to fighting Ctn. Hook (which could represent terrorism) and Rufio is also a tad shorter than his opponent. And Obama, like Rufio, would probably get more style points, at least before pan gets his green tights back. And yes, I do know that I am treating a Steven Spielberg movie like it is Shakespeare, but after all what would new media be like “without Captain Hook?”