Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Wall Street Hands Massive Gift to Obama. The Question is, What Will He Do With It?

There's been a bloodbath on Wall Street this week, with the Dow Jones dropping 7% to a new three-year low, erasing over $1-trillion in U.S. stock value, amid the financial crises that befell Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and AIG. Washington Mutual could be another casualty soon. People are scared to death, and fear that there's much more carnage to come. The economy is in the worst shape in modern history. And in this year's presidential election campaign, it's "It's the economy stupid" all over again. Americans are suffering. They're angry, frustrated and very worried about their homes, their jobs and their savings. They're primed for change. If Sen. Barack Obama cannot successfully mine this pot of gold by inextricably linking this financial disaster to his opponent Sen. John McCain and the Republican Party, where it belongs , then he doesn't deserve to win. He's being handed the election on a silver platter now, and the key question is, can he capitalize on this incredible political gift.

No matter how much Republicans try to change their uniform, the truth is, George Bush has been president for eight years, and the GOP has controlled both houses of Congress since 1994, with the exception of the last two years, where Democrats have held a paper-thin, non-filibuster-proof majority. The "swamp" in Washington that McCain and his veep Gov. Sarah Palin repeatedly refer to on the campaign trail is their party's mess. The crisis on Wall Street and in the mortgage industry is a result of years of Republican-led deregulation and greed. Let's be clear: the economic stench gagging America right now is attributable to Republicans. This election is now a referendum on what Bush, the GOP and McCain have done to destroy the economy since 2000, and Obama must slam this point home. If he can do so effectively, he will be our next president.

It's a new day. The political winds have changed thanks to the pain emanating from Wall Street, and voters, the media and the candidates themselves are finally talking about the issue most important to Americans, rather than wasting our time and insulting our intelligence yapping about Paris Hilton, lipstick and abortion. The economy is where Obama and Democrats have the upper hand. Obama's new mantra should be "Bush, McCain, Republicans, the horrible economy: it's time to say goodbye to them all." Drive this point home, over, and over, and over again...right up until Americans head into the voting booth.

This election is now Obama's to lose.

HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's time now to help Obama fight the bigger fight and win the November election. He's gonna need money. Lots of money. Will you join me in making as large a contribution as you can to the campaign? I am personally commited to raising $25,000 for Sen. Obama and you can help me reach this goal. Click here to make a contribution. The White House is well within reach. Let's not let it slip away this time.

HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: John McCain and the GOP are going to spend tends of millions on vicious attack ads and aggressive ground teams. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizable war chest, Sen. Obama can successfully combat the GOP's attack and win these states. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.


Anonymous said...

Obama is going to tax the shit out of the economy...haven't you listened to anything that he has said ?

Obama will drive this economy further into the ground. There is NO WAY Obama can fulfill his campaign promises without raising taxes on every American. Forget his 'no tax increases on 95% of Americans' bullshit. He's LYING. By the time he is in the White House, there is nothing we can do and he'll raise everyones taxes.

Obama has NO TRACK RECORD of keeping his word. He is a liar and a big time socialist.

Anonymous said...

Today Harry Reid has blasted Phil Gramm for the current Wall Street dilemmas because Gramm was responsible for 1999 legislation that deregulated the financial services industries.

Joe Biden supported this legislation

Anonymous said...

Nope. Obama is going to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 and oil company profits, you know, the guys who have made more money in the last few years than in history? Off the backs of the American people? As well as close corporate loop holes etc etc.

He will lower taxes on everyone making $150,000 or less. Period.

And yes, lowering taxes on the middle class is one of the major ways to get this economy going again as they are the ones that will spend their money on goods and services, thereby growing the economy from the bottom up, giving it real roots and a solid foundation, and not this absurd policy of giving the wealthiest everything in hopes that they will in turn take care of the rest of us.

Nice try. But, no. You're lying you republican sack of shit. You're party is RESPONSIBLE for this mess. You are truly fucked. Your party in power has been like the snl skits before bush was sworn in. Remember? Will Ferrell played an idiot prez, and during his watch, we were at war, the economy crumbled, and the country was a disaster? Remember that? It was a joke. A no way this could ever actually happen. But, son of a gun, you dumbfucks actually pulled it off. The country is a disaster under your watch. Funny, things were so good right BEFORE you got into power.

YOU ARE FUCKED. Democrats are going to be in power for a looooong time. Go learn yoga so you can suck your own cock to console yourself. Dipshit.


Anonymous said...

Joe Biden supported legislation at that time that included limitations to the deregulation. Those limits, of course, were thrown out the window once the republicans took the white house.

But let's be clear -- Phil Graham, mccain's economic advisor, SPONSORED and wrote that legislation to deregulate.

Here's another difference - Biden now admits it was a terrible mistake ten years ago. GRAHAM STILL THINKS IT'S THE BEST POLICY. REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S HAPPENED.

Because, you know, Americans are just a bunch of whiners. Tell that to the losers of hundreds of billions of dollars the last two days.

Typical republicans. In spite of the fact that absolutely everything has gone to utter HELL with their policies, they don't care. They still blindly believe in those policies. Talk about choosing party over country. That's the campaign slogan, "Party First!"

Anonymous said...

"Obama is going to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 and oil company profits,.."

OK and the oil companies aren't going to simply pass those tax increases right off to the customers, right ?

You obviously don't know the difference between profit and profit margin. You should look it up. If you are so worried about how much money a company makes, how about looking at pharmaceuticals and cosmetics as well. They make a lot more money for every dollar invested than the oil companies do.

I hope you don't have a 401k or mutual funds. Those evil companies you want to tax probably make up a good portion of your retirement investments, assuming liberals work and save for retirement.

Anonymous said...

... profit margin ... uh ... you mean something like ... uh ... this-

Many economists confuse profit margin with return on equity. The profit margin is the percentage of net income occurring from sales revenue. The return on equity is the net income divided by the total equity. The profit margin should be much less than the market interest rate, and the return on equity should equal the market interest rate.

If the Federal funds rate is lower than the market interest rate, the market interest rate would equal the Federal funds rate. If the market interest rates are higher, then borrowers would borrow from the Federal Reserve System. This decrease demand from the market interest loaners, which would cause the market interest rates to equal the Federal funds rate.

Total equity is the total capital invested. Assuming that there are no liabilities, then in a purely unhampered free market, the return on investment (ROI) should be the net income divided by total equity.

If you see Google finance, the return on equity for ExxonMobil is 35%, which is much higher than 2%. The return on equity for monopolized firms such as Microsoft is 50%, which is much higher for 2%.

So ExxonMobil's return on equity is much higher than the market interest rate.

But what if there are liabilities? The return on investment is the net income plus the total liabilities times the market interest rate, then divided by the total equity.

ROI = (Net_income + Total_liability * Market_interest_rate) / Total_equity

This equation is derived from this equation:

Total_equity * ROI - Total_liability * Market_interest_rate = Net_income

If you add everything after the ROI and divide Total_equity, then you should get the first equation.

But since there are artificially below market interest rates such as the Federal funds rate, the market interest rate is the Federal funds rate. The Federal funds rate is currently at 2%.

For example, if you take the ExxonMobil statistics. The net income is 40,610.00, total liability is 120,320.00 and total equity is 121,762.00.

If you calculate, then you would get (40,610.00 + 120,320.00 * 0.02) / 121,762.00 = 35.3%. You then found out that the ROI of ExxonMobil is 35.3%, which is much higher than 2%.

If the total liability is not much greater than the total equity, then return on equity is fairly a good measure for ROI, since the 2% Federal funds rate is insignificant to make any difference.
Defending the criticizers

If you heard arguments defending

ExxonMobil, you shouldn't trust them. First, ExxonMobil practices tax loopholes that understate their net income. Second, the profit margin shouldn't be confused with the return on investment. Third, the return on investment is much higher than it should be.

Listen dipshit, I want everyone in this country to make as much as they can. I certainly have. But when any one entity makes profits that are, by any reasonable measure, obscene, and those obscene profits are at the expense of and assist in inflicting financial strife upon the american people which hits the economy hard, the very country that makes it possible for the entity to make the fortune in the first place, then yes, make them pay a little more tax ... or deal with inflation, stabalize and strengthen the dollar and cut out the speculator bullshit. Or both.

You'll like yoga.

Athena Smith said...

Guys I do not know if you read about his interview with a Spanish newspaper. It is making headlines in Europe. He either confused Spain with Mexico or he sort of said that he would not meet with Zapatero...
It was extremely disturbing....
Economy is very important but a succesful economy in a globalized world depends on keeping excellent relations with your partners.
I believe he insulted them for no reason... (Just remember the price Spain paid... March 11, 2004, the Madrid train bombings...)
It was the most insensitive answer he could give. And I believe it was the result of confusion.

Anonymous said...

Trump endorses McCain on Larry King

Donald Trump, the flamboyant New York magnate, said on CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Wednesday night that he is supporting Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president.

Trump, never shy with his opinions, went on to say that McCain appears to be winning, and that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) should have chosen Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as his running mate.

“I know John McCain, and John McCain's a great guy, a tremendous guy,” Trump told King. “I've known him for a long time. And I'm with him, and I'm with him based on the fact that I have great knowledge of John McCain. Also, this is not the right time for tax increases. And Obama wants to increase your taxes drastically.”

I might be crazy, but Donald Trump seems to know a little about the economy. You might even say that Trump is highly invested in our economy. He is not going to support someone that will destroy our economy. He supports John McCain.

barneybarnbarn said...

Andy, you're scaring me. Are you about to flip like that Little Lord Fontloroy beee-atch? (Can't remember her name, but she's the billionaire who called Obama an elitist!)

You say you support Obama, but your headline says "what will he do with it" and then you end by saying "it's his to lose".

Andy, you're a big blogger. PLEASE use more positive wording. And stop saying that the election is close!!! It's not, electorally. Depending on what poll you read, Obama's up in electoral votes by ALMOST 100!! And the national polls have just swung almost 10 points in 2 days!

Prediction: Obama by and amazing landslide. Trust me. Obama's doing the right thing with it. He's winning. With style. The GOP is in it's final death throws. In fact ALL conservative thinking, (Hillary, DLC, etc.) should watch out. REAL change is coming. I really think Obama's the real deal. I think this whole center-right (again, that INCLUDES the Clintons) is about to finally die, the way it should.

So tell the truth Andy. Stop sounding like an old fashioned, center-right '90's democrat and start talking positive, truth, politics for the people, hopeful NEW democrat. Come join us!! We're gonna' be in power for a while. Get use to it.

Athena Smith said...

He is one of the very very rich who is going to benefit from the "only for rich tax cuts" that McCain is going to continue, because he, like Bush, believes in the trickle-down effect. Supposedly, the more the rich make, the more they invest intoo the economy and eventually these profits reach down to the middle classes.

However, this is a global economy, and the rich are investing around the globe, in the market that promises the highest returns. They do not invest here any more (with the exception of very few).

Obama's plan aims at cutting taxes for the middle classes, folks like you and me. Why? Beacuse it is the mid-size business that can fuel the economy again.
If you identify so strongly with Trumps financial interest and net profits, then by own means vote for McCain. Your privilege.

But please do not say that Obama is raising taxes for the middle classes. If you want to support this thesis then quote Obama directly, not Trump.
Direct references please. Not hear-say.

Anonymous said...

Biden slips again

Now, along with 'neighborliness' forced upon people at gun point by the United States government, paying more taxes is 'patriotic'.

Obama/Biden's Orwellian redefinition of words is alarming.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday (9/18/8) that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. The Republican campaign for president calls the tax increases their Democratic opponents propose "painful" instead of patriotic.

Anonymous said...

" They do not invest here any more (with the exception of very few)."

This is not an attack, I'm just curious. In a previous thread, you stated that you are Greece. Do you pay taxes in America? Are you a United States citizen ? How often do you come to America ? Why are you contributing to the Greek economy instead of the US ?

Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton made it possible for people who normally would not be given loans to buy houses to become eligible for easy loans. He wanted everybody to have "the American Dream." The Democrats have had the majority for the last two years and did nothing to change the situation. Obama collected huge sums of money rom Lehman Brothers lobbyists. Obama's gigantic plans for socialism will make the USA a third world country. McCain is not the ideal answer but he is the better choice in this election. Obama cannot be trusted because he is inexperienced, philisophically a socialist and he lies.

Anonymous said...

Obama has already broken the promises that won him the Primary on:

* campaign-finance reform
* abortion
* capital punishment
* guns
* Iran
* Iraq
* the surge
* and drilling offshore

Obama has NO TRACK RECORD of keeping his word. His promises to not increase taxes on 95% of Americans IS A FLAT OUT LIE

Athena Smith said...

I live and work legally in the US. I pay taxes to both countries. That's what the law says in both countries. Doubly taxed I am afraid.
Nice, hah? :))

Please read Biden's comments again. He was referring to the rich Americans. Yes, the rich will have to pay more.

Anonymous said...

"This election is now Obama's to lose."

If he keeps his teleprompter on the trail, gets wired during the debates like they accused Bush of doing maybe, maybe he will keep his foot out of his mouth and win. Otherwise, so long sucker.

Athena Smith said...

A tribute to the "Fair and Blanced"

On their site I read "Biden: Be Patriotic, Pay More Taxes: Dem VP candidate declares that paying higher taxes 'to help get America out of the rut' is patriotic thing to do"

I click on that headline and I read "Biden: Wealthy Americans Must Pay More Taxes to Show Patriotism"

The whole comment was there to read for those who actually read the whole story.

Anonymous said...

The Do-Nothing Democrat Controlled Congress may adjourn so they can side step making a decision on the financial crisis.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, ``no one knows what to do'' at the moment.

Let's not forget, the Democrat Controlled Congress that has been leading the Legislative Branch for 2 years is the least accomplished Congress, with the lowest approval ratings in the history of Congressional approval ratings.

The Democrats just want to raise taxes, stop domestic oil production, and panders to their radical environmentalist base to prevent all means alternative energy (wind, solar, coal, nuclear have all been blocked by Democrats).

Putting Obama into the White House will the worst mistake Americans have ever made. He has no track record of making tough decisions, he has never run anything that requires a 'buck stops here' mentality. To quote Bill Clinton, Barack Obama "is a fairy tale."

Anonymous said...

Why would we let the folks who caused the financial mess (McCain and Repubs) be the ones to fix the financial mess? McCain's financial adviser (Phil Gram) wrote the financial laws that deregulated the oversite agencies and boy are we starting to see the consequences. He's the one who said we are just whiners because the economy isn't so bad.

Here in Michigan, we are not in a recession, but rather a depression. McCain sounds like President Hoover just before the Great Depression.

The Republican Party has been in charge of the House, Senate and White House for 6 of the last 8 years. Now they want to privitize and cut my Social Security and make me pay taxes on my health insurance which means my employer will most likely take the benefit away.

Elections have consequences.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats in Congress are afraid to address the issue because they are trying to have fingers pointed at them.

Just what we don't need: Democrats afraid to make a move in Congress + Mr. Barack "130 Present Votes" Obama afraid to make a decision in the White House.

Anonymous said...

Sex Ed—an Oldie and a Goodie, With Meaning
Seeing the McCain campaign's advertisement claiming Obama voted to teach sex education to kindergarteners was like flipping across the radio dial and stopping on a great oldies station. Sex ed in the schools? Gosh, we haven't heard that one in a while.

The set-piece wisdom in politics is that, in general-election campaigns, candidates must run to the middle. They have to move away from their more ideological supporters in order to scoop up all those independent voters lurking in the ideological center.

But part of the big sort has been a decrease in these independent voters over the past 30 years. Moreover, there's good evidence that general-election voters are no less partisan or ideological than primary voters—and that candidates who moderate their tone risk alienating their supporters.

The Bush campaign in 2004 was the first to realize these generation-long trends. They looked at their polls in January of that year and saw that nobody was left in the middle. (Hey, how many truly undecided voters do you know?) At that point, they switched from a campaign aimed at convincing independents to one geared at turning out supporters. What the McCain sex-ed ad tells me is that the Republicans think they can win this thing by moving away from the middle. No need to compromise. Just fire up those supporters and party like it's 2004.

Sex education is an oldie but a goodie because it's about so much more than sex or education. Some of the earliest coalitions in the conservative movement were formed around schoolbook fights. In Orange County, California, anti-U.N.ers found common cause with evangelicals and small-government libertarians in late-'60s battles over what books should be used in the public schools. Sex education and books were a proxy for a constellation of beliefs that were defining modern-day conservatism.

Maybe we can see this phenomenon more clearly if we take a trip back to 1974 and the great Kanawha County, W.Va., schoolbook war.

In the spring of that year, the local school board introduced a new set of "multicultural" texts. There had been a dispute about sex education in the Kanawha schools a year or two earlier, and one of the leaders of that protest had been elected to the board. She began to talk against the books, saying they violated "traditional Christian and American values." Parents met. Then they protested. By the end of summer, they were holding mass marches in Charleston. And when school started, parents kept their children out of the classrooms. By the fall, much of the state's coal-mining industry was shut down as union miners went on strike over the books. Things got out of hand. One minister prayed publicly for the deaths of three school board members. Shots were fired at a school bus, somebody dynamited a school, and several folks went to jail.

Ten years after the strike ended, a graduate student interviewed a large group of West Virginia's schoolbook warriors. Don Goode found that pro- and anti-schoolbook advocates disagreed not just about schools but about everything.

Pro-book advocates believed in government and thought that perhaps taxes should be raised. They supported the Supreme Court's ruling that prayer be banned from schools. They thought schools should serve hot meals to poor kids and provide day care. Pro-book West Virginians went to mainline churches (Methodist and Episcopalian) and lived mostly in the city of Charleston.

Anti-book activists told Goode they disagreed with the Supreme Court's prayer decision. They thought government was too big, that tax money was wasted, and that schools shouldn't try to take the place of families. They lived in the rural areas of Kanawha County and worshipped at nondenominational churches like the Two-Mile Mountain Mission Church and the Open Door Apostolic Church.

Goode also asked the West Virginians what values they thought were most important. Those who thought the new textbooks were OK ranked a "world of beauty in nature and the arts" quite high on Goode's list of 18 values. They agreed that having a "saved, eternal life" was least important.

Those who opposed the books ranked eternal salvation first.

Talk about your two Americas ...

McCain's advertisement wasn't about sex education. It was telling people McCain adhered to a matrix of beliefs that has defined conservatives for two generations. The sex-ed ad said the candidate would maintain traditional authority, build a strong military, and appoint conservative judges to the courts. In one 30-second ad, the Republican could send a message about faith, foreign policy, the size of government, and taxes. The political message was that McCain believes he can win without expanding the party, compromising, or promising some dreamy post-partisan future.

These boys are hunkering down. And the only people who misunderstood what McCain meant were those who thought the ad had something to do with a bill Barack Obama supported in the Illinois state senate.

Published Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:18 AM by Bill Bishop

Anonymous said...

That post was too long

Nobody is going to read that. If I want to read a dissertation I'll search for it.

Anonymous said...

Check out how much more Wall Street firms have given to Obama as compared to McCain. Hmmm, why do you think this is?

Anonymous said...

"You are ACTUALLY going to try and argue that the democrats have been in control of congress for two whole years..."

So let's see, Liberals want to blame George W. Bush for failing to stop 9/11 in 8 months and at the same time they want to reflect blame for the Democrats not preventing the financial crisis in 2 years.

You can't have it both ways liberals! Point to one bill vetoed by Bush that shows the Democrats tried to prevent the financial crisis. You can't do it.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats have not been without power in the last two years even if they did not have a huge majortiy. Even when they were in the minority they had power which they gave to Bush by voting with him for the war in Iraq and gave him their power to invade although it was their job to make that determination when the time came. They have been spineless, weak and stupid during the last two years and part of this mess is absolutely their fault. I'm a Democrat and I've been disgusted with the Party since the vote for Bush's war.

Pelosi and Reid are laughable.

Pelosis absoutely would have no drilling because she was going to save the world, she said on TV. Next thing you know, the world be-damned. she's for drilling. Same with Obama.

Anonymous said...

And now it looks like the son of Democrat Mike Kernell (D-TN) was the person who hacked Palin's email accout.

Democrat's are evil

This what we'll learn to accept as the Orwellian norm if Obama becomes President. Political attacks on the family of political opponents, attacks on the privacy of political opponents, unsubstantiated claims accepted as fact, redefinition of words like 'neighborliness' and 'patriotic', baseless predictions of racist attacks from political opponents, ...

Anonymous said...

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said on Friday he supported efforts by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve to shore up confidence in the financial markets and said he would hold off from presenting his own economic recovery plan.

This sounds a lot like John Kerry's "I have a plan" claims that he claimed would have saved American lives. Of course, Kerry didn't share his plan.

One day after Harry Reid confessed, ``no one knows what to do'' at the moment. about the financial crisis, Obama claims to have a plan that he won't disclose

It's finally time for some details, Mr. Obama. Americans are tired of your Messiah-like speeches. disclose your 'plan', Mr. Obama.

Anonymous said...

8:57 is correct. The Democrats have "lost it". They are so full of hate; and it seems, will do anything to win. I don't know what went wrong but Obama is the exponent. We must elect McCain, hold our breath, cross our fingers and wait until 2012. McCain will be the seast harmful of the two.

Anonymous said...

There appears to be an Obama campaign connection to the 'alleged' Palin email Hacker

David Kernell, son of Democrat Congressman Mike Kernel (D-TN), is the 'alleged' Palin email hacker. He has ties to Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe.

I wonder how long the main stream media can possibly ignore this ? We ALL know that if the son of a Republican Congressman did this to Biden it would have non-stop coverage with it's own theme music.

Anonymous said...

Funny how Dems made fun of Palin's being briefed for her interview with Gibson. Cramming for a test, someone on this blog said. But nobody is mentioning the fact, now revealed, that Obama has all of Bill Clinton's financial advisors briefing him so he, Obama, can come up with "HIS" answer to the financial crisis Just great he needs to cram to be President. Hope he's understanding their advice.

Anonymous said...

12"47 Even Fox News is ignoring it. I wonder why? It should be on every news outlet.

It';s illegal of course and jail time is involved.