There Is a Silver Lining

I have always believed that birds of a feather will always flock together and if you CANNOT trust one of them, you can't trust any of them.

We all select our friends and associates by their character. If we do not agree with their character and how they lead their lives, then we will NOT accept them as our friends. I, personally, would never associate with anyone that was involved in any kind of criminal activities or racial activities, or involved in any kind of demonstrations against the country which I love with all my heart. I have too much self respect and pride to associate with these types of lowlife trash.

But, for some reason, we CANNOT and will NOT hold our President to these same standards and good judgement. It seems that a president who has 'no sex' with a young intern in our Oval Ofiice is beyond scrutiny and is still considered to be a GREAT president. It doesn't matter that his actions destroyed the view of the office of the presidency in the eyes of our friends around the world and destroyed the morals of all of our young people. The character of a president is just not important to the American people any longer.

Promises of 'hope and change' and empty rhetoric has replaced the need of a presidential candidate to have good judgemnet and good character. As long as they are shrewd enough to 'look presidential' and said what the POOR STUPID Americans want to hear, that is all that is important. The American people no longer need evidence, REAL evidence, that a candidate is capable of fulfilling his promises and is capable of protecting and serving the people. Talk is cheap, but the right talk has proven to be all that is required by the American people. Judgement, character, and experience is no longer required.

I have always believed that birds of a feather will always flock together and if you CANNOT trust one of them, you can't trust any of them. The American voter is willing to accept Obama at face value, without thoroughly researching his background. I would like to know how many Americans are willing to send our young men and women into combat overseas to fight terrorists, and, at the same time, are willing to accept a president who has been friends with domestic terrorists for years, and a president who is supported by Hamas and many, many other radical groups and leaders from around the world.

Just keep in mind that Obama would never be accepted in the FBI or CIA, but the American voters would elect him as their president and Commander-in-chief of their brave military men and women!!!! May God bless and have mercy on the souls of all the misguided voters!!!!

Obama explains his objection to our National Anthem and Flag!!

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the Anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless.

He better take sides..........if he is not on the side of AMERICA he MUST NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED for the office he is seeking. We do not need a man in office that will not salute the flag. The world knows how to sing, what they need to know is that the USA will defend what that flag stands for.

Pallisor: McCain may have been a co-sponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, but Bush was far far away from supporting it. Seems like it languished in Senate commitee when a super-majority vote is needed (thanks to Republican-installed rules) to bring it to the floor. And quit drinking the Fox News/Bill O-Reilly kool-aid, blaming Barney Frank amd Chris Dodd. Here is an excerpt from a Financial Times interview with former Ohio Republican congressman Mike Oxley (of Oxley-Sarbanes fame):

"Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support [for the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act] on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

"Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

"'???We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we???re facing now, if we hadn???t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,' Mr Oxley says."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

P.S. The bill was reintrouced in 2007 (S.1100). This time, McCain was not a co-sponsor.

Mr. Zakaria: Public investment in infrastructuer is certainly wise, but there is never a bad time to reduce our tax burden. Government's take of GDP is currently just under 20%, which is the highest it's been in two decades and it's uhealthy for capital formation and investment.

What we must do it reign in government spending in unproductive areas and dysfunctional programs, reduce our capital gains, corporate, and dividends taxes, which will stimulate the economy. Take the money saved from the many useless programs and put it into infrastruction investment. And, by all means, tax consumption, which would encourage saving.

There's nothing magical about economics: if you can keep more of your money you're more likely to save and invest; when the government takes a greater share of it, you're more likely to carry unsustainable debt levels.

Phil Mella
www.clearcommentary.com

THOSE HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES A GREAT PHILOSOHPHIE TO THINK, AND HOW CAN UNLIMITYED NATIOONS TO BE LIVING THESE DEPRESSION?

UNITED STATES A GREAT NATION.HOW IT CAN TO HAPPENING THOSE MESS? IT IS A PHILOSOPHIE TO DEBATE
DONIZETI INÁCIO-BRAZIL

Debt which shifts resources from consumption to investment and production is good. Debt which does the reverse is bad. That''s what the chronic and worsening federal budget and current account deficits of the US over the past 30 years, courtesy of Reagan's Voodoo Economics and Bush's Voodoo II, have done. Voodoo III (McCain) would truly be the third strike, as in you are out.

Thank you for this informative piece. For a future piece, could you please explain how we can transition from an economy so heavily connected to over-consumption and housing starts? I don't have a financial background, but begin with the opinion that we will need to do this in order to stop the bubble-and-burst syndrome.

How absolutely brave of the Republicans and especially John McCain to propose the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. I'm sure if the minority Dems hadn't been so mean, the GOP would have proposed another reform act in 12 years, maybe even three!

What jock this country's "political discourse" has become.

CSR and Green technolgy - where they stand in financial crisis of today? Are they still important and relevant?
http://donobad.com/2008/10/12/will-csr-and-green-technologies-stay-relevant/

the problem is systemic... our economic system is flawed... this was a problem brewing for a long time...we must address the and manage 'competitive intensity' without it we will have increasing product amrket failures and therefore jobs and sub-prime mortgage problems... this will not go aways we need regulation to manage 'competitive intensity' given our limited capacity to consume... of course this must be reconciled with the need for innovation and continuous change... nothing else will work... believe me...

Well this is where I believe the lessons of our current economic woes come into play - our situation confirms that there is value in 'consumption' as we've discussed if 'consumption' does not occur products and services fail and ROI and jobs also fail. So, we need to capitalise and monetise the consumptive capacity of these countires in order to give us time to construct a new infrastructure that will regulate 'competitive intensity' instead of increasing the regulation of finance... of course that new infrastructure must reconcile the paradox of limiting competitive intensity with the need for innovation and continuous change and development... it is crucial that use this time to do this because the world has a limit to its capacity to consume, and our problems will return once we have exhausted that capacity; of course this is a long way into the future or is it... the 2nd and 3rd world economies and growing fast barring some trouble spots... throwing money at the economic crisis will not solve anything as it will only defer the problems for a few years - 7 trillions cannot solve this, so 700 billions will have little effect... the fundamental error of contemporary economics is its failure to recognise 'competitive intensity' as a major factor affecting both supply- and demand-sides... of course when our current economic rules were written 'competitive intensity' was not an issue... now it is really is a big one...the main one...

I've just been listening to some commentators about the state of debt, especially credit card debt... that it has been out of control for a long time... Although they are right I wonder if they have considered the fact that, that debt has funded a higher level of consumption, in other words we have bought more products and services than we can afford... notably these products and services represent jobs... so as we reduce spending, consuption will decline and products and services will fail to sell and jobs will be lost.... therein lies the problem with our current economic paradign... competition for a stake in what we consume is at its highest level ever and this will continue to increase infinitely... what is also clear is that we have a limit to what we can consume, therefore there is a limit to the number of products and services that can be sold ina sustainable way... what we have seen is debt used to prop up consumption at an artifical level to support jobs... but as seen lately even 'credit' has it limits... especially when we see new products and services introduced in the market everyday, these products and servcies represent jobs... but these jobs are not sustainable if the products and services do not sell for a sustainable periods... now here's the science... because of increasing competion for stake in consumption (competitive intensity) will continue to rise exponentially while consumption (even at credit card levels) is limited... that limit means that as competitive intensity continues to grow there will be increasingly new products and services that will not sell enough to produce return on investment (ROI) - this will includes existing and new products... this will translate into a constant but increasing level of lost jobs - these lost jobs will translate into bad mortgages which in turn creates the credit crunch.... so whats the answer, there is no rocket science or magic bullet... the answer is simple, it requires that we somehow increase 'consumption' in a sustainable manner - of course this cannot be done by increasing personal consumption it can only be done by not only increasing the number of consumers, but by also making sure that these new consumers are not operating in economies where competitive intensity is not above the threshold discussed above... in practice that really means creating products and service and therefore jobs that service the 2nd and 3rd world economies... but can they afford it?

Fareed Zakaria is the best writer out there - and he's right again on this crisis. We need this kind of conversation going on between the candidates - instead of the garbage politics of the past week. Let's focus on the economy - thanks Fareed!

I only wish my fellow Americans were capable of learning from our mistakes. Second only to our national desire to place the pursuit of wealth above everything else (family, health, education, the environment, freedom, etc), our inability to learn from our mistakes is our greatest problem. We went through something similar to this, but on a smaller scale, in the '80s with the S&L debacle.

Great article by Zakaria. (As usual.)

I think there should be a better incentive to save money rather than borrow it.Maybe interest from savings accounts should be tax deductible rather than being taxed 100 per cent as income.