Obama stump speech strategy of conciliation considered harmful | Corrente

More on why I don’t like Obama.

This also makes the statement that for the last 30 years politics has driven economics as where it historically has been the other way around.  Why is that?  My assertion is because of the relative good economic conditions we have had for the past 60 years.

E

Powered by ScribeFire.

Housing Mess I

December 27, 2007

Good review of the housing mess.  A little scary!

Housing Crash Continues, Bubble Pops

Powered by ScribeFire.

Blu-ray HD rundown

December 25, 2007

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBaD-0001-21882911.htm

Another break down of the Blu-ray HD-DVD race.  I personally am looking forward to a fully loaded Blu-ray player under 150 before I buy.  You have to be careful with Blu-ray in particular because there are a lot of features that are not in the spec but a lot of media could use.

E

Powered by ScribeFire.

We need to get our economy out of the belief that fast growth is the only thing worth having.

WallStreet doesn’t like companies that just turn a reliable profit.  If they are not growing then they are not worth having.  Look at Microsoft as a primary example.  It is not enough that quarter after quarter they post big profits and give their shareholders dividends.  They are seen as not being sexy the the stock price suffers.

To be sustainable we need to realize that we don’t need growth for profit.  The main reason is because traders like to flip stocks not just buy into a company and enjoy the dividends.  Many companies don’t even pay out dividends which I always thought was strange.  Their entire stock price is hinged on the idea of growth and that the stock will be worth more tomorrow than today.

E

Powered by ScribeFire.

Obama Healthcare Trouble

December 24, 2007

Obama has a big problem in his healthcare agenda.  No mandates.  This is a good statement why Mandates are essential to a sustainable program and one reason why I will not be supporting Obama when I vote in the Primary.

In short, mandates are needed because otherwise “healthy” people would opt-out until they are ill and then suddenly have a change of heart.  This would be fine if when they opted out they signed aways saying that no government program will every pay for any treatment for conditions that arise while I am not part of this program.  The problem is that bleeding hearts will choose to allow these game players into the system anyway.  Who is going to let a person with cancer just die.  It is better to require a mandate up front and not have all these bleeding heart stories come out.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/obama-goes-harry-and-louise/

Powered by ScribeFire.

Encourage Property Reuse

December 24, 2007

The article of my last post also says that we need to stop building new houses.

My idea is that new construction should be taxed.  Not reconstruction or reuse of existing property but of new construction should be taxed to encourage the reuse of land and vacant buildings and to raise the value of existing structures as the article says is needed.  It would also ease environmental burden and slow down suburban sprawl where everyone wants a new house at the edge of town.  All of the pavement is not a good thing.  We need to encourage higher population densities in order to have sustainability

Higher population density will 1) encourage mass transportation and discourage solo driving 2) have a sociological effect and discourage reproduction 3) have a general increase in the recognition of the problem of over population.  Because of the sprawl too much of America ignores the environmental impact of overpopulation and selfish living.  This needs to be stopped.  The market has taken care of this on the coast and other high density regions (think roughly of the Red/Blue state maps or better yet Red/Blue County maps).

Powered by ScribeFire.

An article about how the government should do more than it is planning on to stop a recession that many think will be as bad as the early 80’s (I fear a 30’s style myself).

They want people to have their ARMs extended for a period of time.  How they do this is of greatest concern to me.  Do they bail out the banks?  I think they should bail out the home owners.  It was the banking industry that caused this mess and they should only be spared with harsh words of a naughty 3 year old.  The worst in the bunch should be shutdown and the others forced to meet higher lending standards.  Yes higher standards would restrict money supply but it is a necessary evil obviously and should improve investor confidence.  I wouldn’t invest in Mortgage backed securities now if my life depended on it.

E

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071224/ap_on_an/mortgage_crisis

Powered by ScribeFire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ex=1355634000&en=07ae538b78887b68&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

A great oped by Krugman stating some important reasons why I think the Obama has turned out to be a less than ideal candidate.  Krugman states that he has become that candidate for ‘no change’ because he tries to be over eager to compromise.  There are too many things that compromise will just end up destroying it.

Health care is one of those things.  You can’t negotiate with insurance companies because the real way to fix our health care system is to get rid of private insurance companies.  Likewise you can’t tip toe around and allow people to opt out of ‘universal coverage’ unless when they do get sick you say ‘you opted out, your on your own’ and deny any medical care at all which is not what Obama is hinting at (I hope anyway).

Somethings are just not open for compromise.

I always say that Edwards is my candidate but I always feel ashamed that I am supporting the white man as opposed to either the black man or the white female.  Not to mention that Edwards appears to be the most religious of the bunch.  It is not for demographic reasons that I am not supporting Obama or Clinton.

I must point out that there is a difference between Democrats being religious and the Republican’s being religious.  The democrat’s generally are religious in a way that allows them to “Respect this Reality”.  They may be religious but for the most part they will look out for the future of this world.

E

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bumper Sticker…

December 17, 2007

Respect This Reality!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Great!

I am thrilled that Huckabee is doing so well in the Republican primaries.  He is a religious nut that is, for the most part, an economic liberal.  I won’t vote for him because of his religious view point (the religious don’t show proper respect for this reality).  The economic Republican’s have aligned themselves with these religious nuts and this relationship of sin (or deal with the devil) as I call it has proven so far to be pretty good for the Republicans since both sides can ignore or just don’t care about the things that the other side is doing.  Now we have been seeing a greater split in the party because many social conservatives are actually leaning in an economic liberal direction and they may start to overtake the Republican party.  Of course, neither side can make the break or the entire party will go down the tubes.

The Republican’s are very close to a true split in a party so there is a lot of compromise that the social and economic conservatives need to make with each other just to barely hold it together.  The democrats also have many undercurrents but they are not nearly as ‘oil-and-water’ as the Republican party.  The economic conservatives (Goldwater) married themselves to the social conservatives because blowing up social issues is the only way that anti-populist politics can hope to survive in a democracy or a Republic even.  There is another way and that is to disenchant or disenfranchise voters which the two party system has been particularly good at.

There is an artificial 2 party system in America.  There are probably at least 5 key parties that form tight alliances and form the Democrats and Republicans.  Really those two parties are quite a bit the same and so there are actually more parties but the who would vote for them just don’t vote out of frustration.  I sympathize but I am pretty intolerant of abstainers.  They either need to make a decision for the lesser of the, in our case, two evils or just vote for someone without a chance but not voting at all is intolerable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/us/politics/17repubs.html?ex=1355634000&en=e060c674ac5ebc45&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Powered by ScribeFire.