Sunday, October 25, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
McCain's Pension and Family Security Plan...Lame
Although a day later than promised, McCain finally delivered his new financial rescue plan strategy, with 5 basic points :
1. Lower taxes for seniors tapping their retirement accounts and suspend rules that force seniors to liquidate their accounts during economic crisis. (1/2 New)
2. Accelerate the tax write-offs for those forced to sell at at a loss in the current market. (New)
3. Reduce capital gains taxes for '09 and '10.
4. His Homeowner Resurgence Plan, where mortgages would be purchased directly from homeowners and mortgage services and replaced with manageable fixed-rate mortgages.
5. For workers, eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.
---
While 2-5 don't seem all that bad, other than the fact that #3 is fairly moot at the time being, given the general lack of capital gains being realized these days.
Where I do have a problem is with number 1.
while not a stock market expert, I understand that when there is a massive sell-off, stocks fall, and when there is a massive injection of capital, stocks rise. So with that in mind, if a large demographic has incentive to sell off their holdings, based on lower taxes, why would we expect anything less than for stocks to fall.
In a time when we have seen the DOW plummet so significantly, in such a small amount of time, do we really need to create incentives that would splash fuel on the fire?
...as you were
1. Lower taxes for seniors tapping their retirement accounts and suspend rules that force seniors to liquidate their accounts during economic crisis. (1/2 New)
2. Accelerate the tax write-offs for those forced to sell at at a loss in the current market. (New)
3. Reduce capital gains taxes for '09 and '10.
4. His Homeowner Resurgence Plan, where mortgages would be purchased directly from homeowners and mortgage services and replaced with manageable fixed-rate mortgages.
5. For workers, eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.
---
While 2-5 don't seem all that bad, other than the fact that #3 is fairly moot at the time being, given the general lack of capital gains being realized these days.
Where I do have a problem is with number 1.
while not a stock market expert, I understand that when there is a massive sell-off, stocks fall, and when there is a massive injection of capital, stocks rise. So with that in mind, if a large demographic has incentive to sell off their holdings, based on lower taxes, why would we expect anything less than for stocks to fall.
In a time when we have seen the DOW plummet so significantly, in such a small amount of time, do we really need to create incentives that would splash fuel on the fire?
...as you were
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Why McCain wont win over the informed independent
So much for the Straight Talk Express...
In that past 24 hours, both Cindy McCain, and Sarah Palin have aggressively attacked Barack Obama on his record for not voting to support funding the troops in Iraq.
While this is true, it is spun in such a despicable fashion, that it makes me sick, and makes me, a thoughtful moderate, want to fight against the McCain campaign even more.
The reality is, both Obama, and McCain have voted against legislation that *included* funding for the troops fighting in Iraq.
Obama voted against one piece of legislation, because it did not include a time-table for withdrawal, and McCain voted against another because it DID have a time-table for troop withdrawal.
And the simple reality is, it would be political suicide for any politician to outright say "I don't support our troops, and don't want to make sure they have what they need to stay safe in Iraq"
Now, as an educated and informed voter, I understand where both candidates were coming from, and how they both took different views on how they can *best* support our troops. And I don't possess the audacity to question either's Patriotism on the subject.
The part that drives me absolutely crazy is the fact that the McCain campaign is so self-righteous to presume that their own perception of how to best support the troops, is the only way to support the troops. They are apparently too stubborn to appreciate that Obama thinks the best way to support our troops, is to quickly work towards removing them from harm's way, by bringing a responsible end to the effort in Iraq, and bringing our troops home.
And if you recall during the primary season, Ron Paul, a Republican who opposed the
Iraq war effort more than any other candidate, on either side mind you, somehow managed to bring in more contributions from active military personnel than any other candidate.
So for McCain and his hench-women to attempt to prey on the uninformed independent voters by twisting the facts in their favor, is nothing more than sad, pathetic, and manipulative. But fortunately, I suspect the impact will be a negative one for the McCain campaign.
So to John, Sarah, and Cindy... do what you must, but know that voters like myself are onto you. And please stop blaming the main-stream media for calling you out on these remarkable tactics. They are not driving your campaign into the ground, you clearly have the wherewithal to do that all by yourselves.
And ironically, since the McCain campaign is smart enough to know that it cant win this election on any important issue, they have turned to attacks on Obama's character. But what will the voters think about McCain's character when they catch onto these underhanded tricks?
...as you were
In that past 24 hours, both Cindy McCain, and Sarah Palin have aggressively attacked Barack Obama on his record for not voting to support funding the troops in Iraq.
While this is true, it is spun in such a despicable fashion, that it makes me sick, and makes me, a thoughtful moderate, want to fight against the McCain campaign even more.
The reality is, both Obama, and McCain have voted against legislation that *included* funding for the troops fighting in Iraq.
Obama voted against one piece of legislation, because it did not include a time-table for withdrawal, and McCain voted against another because it DID have a time-table for troop withdrawal.
And the simple reality is, it would be political suicide for any politician to outright say "I don't support our troops, and don't want to make sure they have what they need to stay safe in Iraq"
Now, as an educated and informed voter, I understand where both candidates were coming from, and how they both took different views on how they can *best* support our troops. And I don't possess the audacity to question either's Patriotism on the subject.
The part that drives me absolutely crazy is the fact that the McCain campaign is so self-righteous to presume that their own perception of how to best support the troops, is the only way to support the troops. They are apparently too stubborn to appreciate that Obama thinks the best way to support our troops, is to quickly work towards removing them from harm's way, by bringing a responsible end to the effort in Iraq, and bringing our troops home.
And if you recall during the primary season, Ron Paul, a Republican who opposed the
Iraq war effort more than any other candidate, on either side mind you, somehow managed to bring in more contributions from active military personnel than any other candidate.
So for McCain and his hench-women to attempt to prey on the uninformed independent voters by twisting the facts in their favor, is nothing more than sad, pathetic, and manipulative. But fortunately, I suspect the impact will be a negative one for the McCain campaign.
So to John, Sarah, and Cindy... do what you must, but know that voters like myself are onto you. And please stop blaming the main-stream media for calling you out on these remarkable tactics. They are not driving your campaign into the ground, you clearly have the wherewithal to do that all by yourselves.
And ironically, since the McCain campaign is smart enough to know that it cant win this election on any important issue, they have turned to attacks on Obama's character. But what will the voters think about McCain's character when they catch onto these underhanded tricks?
...as you were
Sunday, October 5, 2008
An important thing to note about John McCain
During the final month of the presidential campaign, its going to be very challenging for the average American to sift through the mud that is sure to come from either side.
And with McCain behind in the polls, I expect we will see even more mud-slinging and attack ads from his camp.
As most of us know, its very hard, if not impossible to get a true sense of what a candidate will do once they actually end up in the oval office.
For those of you who recall Bush's 2000 campaign, you know that he has clearly drifted from the promises he made before taking office. Some might say that 9/11 changed things, and that may be true, but ultimately, very few of us got what we expected from our 43rd president.
With that in mind, I would like to revisit a direct quote from John McCain's acceptance speech, at the recent Republican National Convention.
---
"I've fought the big spenders...
(APPLAUSE)
I've fought the big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on
things you neither need nor want, and the first big-spending
pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I
will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know
their names.
---
Now the above statement is something most of us, as Americans can get on board with, as its one of those bi-partisan issues that most of us agree could use some work.
It basically means that if any member of Congress tries to add a multi-million dollar sweetener, or "pork" to a piece of multi-part legislation, he will veto the entire bill, no questions asked.
The Alaskan "Bridge to No Where" is a great example of this. Basically a several hundred million dollar transportation bridge, paid for by the federal government, and the taxes of all American's across the country, which would only benefit a few thousand locals in Alaska.
Not only does McCain promise to swiftly brandish the veto pen in all circumstances like these, he also promises to effectively embarrass the congressman or congresswoman who tried to sneak the ear-mark onto the bill, so the whole country will know exactly who is trying to horde federal taxpayer funds, for the good of their own constituency.
Here's the problem :
The recent financial rescue bill, which passed congress this past week, and was signed by President Bush, contained approximately $140 billion in so-called pork sweeteners, in order to create a bill that would stand a better chance of passing congress than the earlier version of the bill which failed to pass earlier in the week.
So basically a staggering $700 billion rescue bill, was forced to increase in size by 20% in ear-marks, in order to convince a few corrupt politicians to vote for a bill they didn't believe in, in the first place...
Here are a just a few nauseating examples of some of the ear-mark additions to the most recent financial bailout bill :
-- millions of pork for Hollywood producers
-- millions more for stockcar race track owners
-- more than $192 million for Caribbean rum producers
-- over $200 million for Alaskan fisherman
So given the facts of the bill, one would assume that the Maverick, John McCain, would stand by his promise, and while unable to veto the bill (since that is a power of only the American president), would at least vote against the bill, showing his disgust for its wasteful contents, and maybe even have a press conference to let us all know which members congress changed their votes thanks to these additions.
As most of you already know... McCain voted yes on the piece of legislation, effectively going against his promise and stance on earmark spending.
So much for the Straight-Talk Express, so much for sticking to your guns, and so much for leaving with any hope that you are full of anything but empty promises, and sound-bytes.
...as you were
And with McCain behind in the polls, I expect we will see even more mud-slinging and attack ads from his camp.
As most of us know, its very hard, if not impossible to get a true sense of what a candidate will do once they actually end up in the oval office.
For those of you who recall Bush's 2000 campaign, you know that he has clearly drifted from the promises he made before taking office. Some might say that 9/11 changed things, and that may be true, but ultimately, very few of us got what we expected from our 43rd president.
With that in mind, I would like to revisit a direct quote from John McCain's acceptance speech, at the recent Republican National Convention.
---
"I've fought the big spenders...
(APPLAUSE)
I've fought the big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on
things you neither need nor want, and the first big-spending
pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I
will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know
their names.
---
Now the above statement is something most of us, as Americans can get on board with, as its one of those bi-partisan issues that most of us agree could use some work.
It basically means that if any member of Congress tries to add a multi-million dollar sweetener, or "pork" to a piece of multi-part legislation, he will veto the entire bill, no questions asked.
The Alaskan "Bridge to No Where" is a great example of this. Basically a several hundred million dollar transportation bridge, paid for by the federal government, and the taxes of all American's across the country, which would only benefit a few thousand locals in Alaska.
Not only does McCain promise to swiftly brandish the veto pen in all circumstances like these, he also promises to effectively embarrass the congressman or congresswoman who tried to sneak the ear-mark onto the bill, so the whole country will know exactly who is trying to horde federal taxpayer funds, for the good of their own constituency.
Here's the problem :
The recent financial rescue bill, which passed congress this past week, and was signed by President Bush, contained approximately $140 billion in so-called pork sweeteners, in order to create a bill that would stand a better chance of passing congress than the earlier version of the bill which failed to pass earlier in the week.
So basically a staggering $700 billion rescue bill, was forced to increase in size by 20% in ear-marks, in order to convince a few corrupt politicians to vote for a bill they didn't believe in, in the first place...
Here are a just a few nauseating examples of some of the ear-mark additions to the most recent financial bailout bill :
-- millions of pork for Hollywood producers
-- millions more for stockcar race track owners
-- more than $192 million for Caribbean rum producers
-- over $200 million for Alaskan fisherman
So given the facts of the bill, one would assume that the Maverick, John McCain, would stand by his promise, and while unable to veto the bill (since that is a power of only the American president), would at least vote against the bill, showing his disgust for its wasteful contents, and maybe even have a press conference to let us all know which members congress changed their votes thanks to these additions.
As most of you already know... McCain voted yes on the piece of legislation, effectively going against his promise and stance on earmark spending.
So much for the Straight-Talk Express, so much for sticking to your guns, and so much for leaving with any hope that you are full of anything but empty promises, and sound-bytes.
...as you were
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The Financial Bailout : My Thoughts...
So after careful consideration, I personally believe the $700+ billion bailout plan is the wrong course of action. It goes against everything we believe in terms of capitalism, and the free market.
While unfortunately, the situation we are faced with was created due to unregulated and unrestrained capitalism at its finest, a socialize bailout is not the answer. We need to let the market auto-correct, as it certainly will, and introduce a greater level of regulation to the world of finance as we move forward, just like what we see with other regulated industries, such as insurance.
Without regulation, why would the capitalists on wall street do anything less than try to maximize profits, via leveraging assets 60-80 times over, effectively turning wall street into a casino.
Well guess what, the real estate market crapped out, and they lost everything on a collection of risky bets.
Unfortunately the casualties of such a massive failure will be widespread, and felt my most, if not all of us, but I believe that is the way it should be.
If artificial interest rates, and artificial valuation got us into this mess, why would anyone think that an artificial solution, in the form of a socialized bailout package, estimated to cost between 7-10K in tax payer contributions, per American family...be the right solution?
On a more micro scale, if a company runs its business poorly, it will be forced out of business by a better business, whether bigger or smaller, so why should it not be the same with the likes of AIG, Fanny Mae, Washington Mutual, Freddie Mac, etc?
Why do these companies, who have proven to be a failed business model, deserve a second chance at the expense of all of us?
Call it a lack of empathy, but I think the people responsible for making bad or risky decisions, should be held accountable for those decisions. Not only the executives at these mega-banks, but also investors in those banks, and home-owners who got in over their heads with interest only mortgages.
About a year ago, I lost about 50% of an investment I made into a mortgage company. While it sucks, I took my losses like a man, sold out, and avoided loosing the other 50% before it got worse.
I am sorry, but if a consumer is faced with foreclosure, then that is the market telling you that you haven't earned the right, and don't deserve to be a home-owner at this time, at least not at the level of home you are currently in.
I have paid my mortgages on time, every time, for the past 6 years, why should I be forced into investing into this rubbish?
What the government is asking us to do as tax-payers is unfair, and unjustified, and sets a terrible president.
Will things be worse in the short-term... maybe....probably, but until we get back to naturally market regulated levels, we wont be out of the woods, so lets just rip the band-aid off, get it over with, and rebuild from there.
Instead of coughing up 700+ billion in tax-payer money, basically calling it a tax-payer investment, without really knowing how that money will be spent, and why.... let the values of these failing entities fall to a level where they become appealing to a non-struggling, better managed entity, who sees the value in scooping up assets dirt cheap, with a high probability of a substantial return on investment.
The market has a way of rewarding good practices, and punishing unethical and often greed-ridden practices.
Let me paint a comparable picture for everyone, on a micro-level, just so we all know what this bailout plans to do :
If someone has a $30,000 BMW, that has plummeted in value, to lets just say $20,000, that they cant afford to continue paying for, is it fair for the government to "force" another buyer (the taxpayer) to purchase said vehicle for $30K, knowing full well that is worth $10K less than that? Hell no!!
Who's to say the value wont plummet further? Why should the seller get a free pass, earn back artificial equity on a poor investment, leaving the buyer with an asset they paid way to much for, that they may not ever see a return on.
Here is what the free-market dictates should happen...
The seller would be forced to reduce the sale price, to something that more buyers will find appealing, lets say 18-20K. So if purchased, that buyer would now has ownership of a balanced item in terms of cost/value.
If that is not an option, the seller can relinquish the asset to the bank, or worst case... file for bankruptcy.
Any questions... does the bailout still sound like a good plan?
...as you were
While unfortunately, the situation we are faced with was created due to unregulated and unrestrained capitalism at its finest, a socialize bailout is not the answer. We need to let the market auto-correct, as it certainly will, and introduce a greater level of regulation to the world of finance as we move forward, just like what we see with other regulated industries, such as insurance.
Without regulation, why would the capitalists on wall street do anything less than try to maximize profits, via leveraging assets 60-80 times over, effectively turning wall street into a casino.
Well guess what, the real estate market crapped out, and they lost everything on a collection of risky bets.
Unfortunately the casualties of such a massive failure will be widespread, and felt my most, if not all of us, but I believe that is the way it should be.
If artificial interest rates, and artificial valuation got us into this mess, why would anyone think that an artificial solution, in the form of a socialized bailout package, estimated to cost between 7-10K in tax payer contributions, per American family...be the right solution?
On a more micro scale, if a company runs its business poorly, it will be forced out of business by a better business, whether bigger or smaller, so why should it not be the same with the likes of AIG, Fanny Mae, Washington Mutual, Freddie Mac, etc?
Why do these companies, who have proven to be a failed business model, deserve a second chance at the expense of all of us?
Call it a lack of empathy, but I think the people responsible for making bad or risky decisions, should be held accountable for those decisions. Not only the executives at these mega-banks, but also investors in those banks, and home-owners who got in over their heads with interest only mortgages.
About a year ago, I lost about 50% of an investment I made into a mortgage company. While it sucks, I took my losses like a man, sold out, and avoided loosing the other 50% before it got worse.
I am sorry, but if a consumer is faced with foreclosure, then that is the market telling you that you haven't earned the right, and don't deserve to be a home-owner at this time, at least not at the level of home you are currently in.
I have paid my mortgages on time, every time, for the past 6 years, why should I be forced into investing into this rubbish?
What the government is asking us to do as tax-payers is unfair, and unjustified, and sets a terrible president.
Will things be worse in the short-term... maybe....probably, but until we get back to naturally market regulated levels, we wont be out of the woods, so lets just rip the band-aid off, get it over with, and rebuild from there.
Instead of coughing up 700+ billion in tax-payer money, basically calling it a tax-payer investment, without really knowing how that money will be spent, and why.... let the values of these failing entities fall to a level where they become appealing to a non-struggling, better managed entity, who sees the value in scooping up assets dirt cheap, with a high probability of a substantial return on investment.
The market has a way of rewarding good practices, and punishing unethical and often greed-ridden practices.
Let me paint a comparable picture for everyone, on a micro-level, just so we all know what this bailout plans to do :
If someone has a $30,000 BMW, that has plummeted in value, to lets just say $20,000, that they cant afford to continue paying for, is it fair for the government to "force" another buyer (the taxpayer) to purchase said vehicle for $30K, knowing full well that is worth $10K less than that? Hell no!!
Who's to say the value wont plummet further? Why should the seller get a free pass, earn back artificial equity on a poor investment, leaving the buyer with an asset they paid way to much for, that they may not ever see a return on.
Here is what the free-market dictates should happen...
The seller would be forced to reduce the sale price, to something that more buyers will find appealing, lets say 18-20K. So if purchased, that buyer would now has ownership of a balanced item in terms of cost/value.
If that is not an option, the seller can relinquish the asset to the bank, or worst case... file for bankruptcy.
Any questions... does the bailout still sound like a good plan?
...as you were
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)