Follow this link to an ABC story that debunks McCain claims of Obama’s double dealing in Iraq.
It should not surprise us that the Republicans should make this accusation. It was a Republican, Ronald Reagan, who encouraged Iran to keep our hostages until Jimmy Carter left office.
Follow this link to an article about AIG underwriting McCain’s think tank.
What do you expect the wolf to say when caught eating the chickens he was supposed to be guarding? Probably something like, “I deplore the concept of wolves guarding henhouses. Give me the power, and I will reform the system.”
Follow this link to the audio tape of the conversation. Click on the play button at the very beginning of the article.
Warning: X-Rated material.
Follow this link to Paul Kugman’s comment in the New York Times about the proposed financial bailout.
On his front page that leads to this article, he says,
Even if you have full faith in Henry Paulson, Intrade currently gives John McCain a 48 percent chance of being president. Are you willing to give essentially unlimited discretion over the use of $700 billion — with explicit protection against any review by Congress or the courts — to Phil Gramm?
Is this just another boondoggle so that the Bush administration can give another $700 billion to its friends? I hope not, because, so far, this bailout has done a wonderful job for my portfolio. Never before have I lost so much money, on paper, in two days and gained it back in the two days after that.
I guess Paul Krugman was only getting warmed up on Sunday.
Follow this link to his Cash For Trash column on Monday, September 22.
Follow this link to see a helpful translation of McCain’s latest attempt to scare us.
Here is an excerpt from a Time Magazine item mentioned on Huffington Post.
Let me stipulate: Obama’s Fannie Mae connections are completely fair game. But this ad doesn’t even mention a far more significant tie–that of Jim Johnson, the former Fannie Mae chairman who had to resign as head of Obama’s vice presidential search team after it was revealed he got a sweetheart deal on a mortgage from Countrywide Financial. Instead, it relies on a fleeting and tenuous reference in a Washington Post Style section story to suggest that Obama’s principal economic adviser is former Fannie Mae Chairman Frank Raines. Why? One reason might be that Johnson is white; Raines is black.
Follow this link to an article on Forbes by Marti G. Subrahmanyam.
In this article he explains all the warning signs of financial disaster that could have been discerned before the disaster occurred. Of course, many people had been warning of these signs for years.
Nevertheless, you can guess which presidential candidate has been listening and which one has not. Don’t even talk to me about comparing the VP candidates. There is no comparison.
Follow this link to a definition of the uptick rule quoted below.
A former rule established by the SEC that requires that every short sale transaction be entered at a price that is higher than the price of the previous trade. This rule was introduced in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Rule 10a-1. The uptick rule prevents short sellers from adding to the downward momentum when the price of an asset is already experiencing sharp declines. The SEC eliminated the rule on July 6, 2007.
The new rules just put in place to stop naked short selling is an attempt to undo the damage of eliminating the uptick rule in 2007. I wouldn’t be surprised if the elimination of naked short selling yesterday had a very large part to do with the rise of the market. This is just another example of how the current administration’s penchant for unregulated markets can harm the economy.
So, if you hear the right wing bloviators trying to blame the current financial problems on Jimmy Carter, remember which administration eliminated the uptick rule. What Jimmy Carter did is at least 28 years old. What George Bush did is just a little over 1 year ago. When looking for a cause, why skip over what happened a year ago and search back 28 years for a reason?
Follow this link to read why Wick Allison, former publisher of William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review, endorses Barack Obama. Allison is talking more like the conservatives I used to respect.
Lest we forget the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 where it all began, I have found some interesting links.
Follow this link to see the record of the vote for the act. 53 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted for the bill. 44 Democrats voted against the bill. 1 Republican voted present. 1 Republican did not vote.
Follow this link to the Government Printing Office version of the 144 page bill.
Here is the innocuous sounding official description of the bill:
An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
The following is the real key to understanding the purpose of the act:
TITLE I—FACILITATING AFFILIATION AMONG BANKS, SECURITIES FIRMS, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES
Here is another sound bite you often hear about the bill:
Sec. 101. Glass-Steagall Act repeals.
How about the following heading?
Subtitle B—Streamlining Supervision of Bank Holding Companies
By now you should get the gist of how to interpret Republican double-talk. Remember this when you hear John McCain’s explanations. Remember that Phil Gramm is one key idea man for John McCain.
What they say sounds innocent and good for us. What they mean is hold onto your wallet.
The so-called conservatives don’t have a lock on silly ideas about the economy.
We so-called liberals have to guard against falling for articles of equal silliness on the opposite side.
Follow this link to read the article of Steven G. Brant about the demise of capitalism.
Follow this link to see the comment I made in response.
In the comment, I finally came up with an explanation for what is wrong with only having a qualitative understanding of economic principles (or any other principles for that matter).
The author said “You either have Capitalism or you don’t”.
Having only a qualitative understanding may be the reason for this silly all or nothing notion. Oddly enough the bio of the author claims that he has a civil engineering background. I can’t imagine doing civil engineering without quantitative calculations.
A simple example is a chef with a five pound bag of sugar and a desire to make a pie. Qualitatively she or he knows that the pie needs some sugar. When making a pie, the chef doesn’t ponder whether or not to put in the whole bag of sugar or none at all. The chef knows that there is a measured amount that will be good. Put in far too much or far too little and the pie is inedible.
Life is like this. At some point you have to know when enough is enough. You also have to know when too little, too late will do no good.