I haven’t written much lately because I have been doing my prime duties of taking care of business and my family. However, I have been sifting through the growing pile of ashes of the maelstrom that is building and threatening to raze our country.
It appears that Senator Obama will most likely be our next president, and most likely the Bush Haters will elect him. He has been campaigning specifically toward them, trying to make Senator McCain a Bush clone. McCain’s voting record has not been much different than most in the senate, and is not necessarily wrong; however, he is not George Bush.Look at how the market feels!
The fundamentals of the sub-prime debacle on the market drove it down to a DJIA of 9500, but the movements after that had nothing to do with any basics or economic fundamentals. A free market will correct itself and maintain a calm society.
The lending by mortgage companies and banks to unqualified borrowers and the purchasing of these acid assets by Fannie and Freddie mandated (forced) by the Democrats in the 1990’s and beyond, led to the beginning of the collapse, not “de-regulation” as they have been shouting (outright lying), but there is a lot more heinous things going on under the surface.
As I have said before, the fall below 9500 was greatly enhanced by the fear merchants in the media and the Obama campaign (and some Republicans, everlasting shame on them all).
Why the continued crumbling of stock values? It should make no sense whatsoever. Almost a 1000 major stocks were at that point selling below their cash-held value. (i.e., if a company has $1000 in cash and a 100 shares, its cash-held value are $10, if it is bid at $8, this is a steal).
The Dow hit the area of 8500 three times and broke through on Friday meaning cash rich companies should be immediate targets, but there are no buyers. Remember, the market seldom reacts, it mostly anticipates. Why does it fear now? I believe it is obvious, the end of the free market; the election of Senator Obama as the first Marxist president.
I DO NOT make this statement lightly or in jest. The Senator said himself he wanted to “spread the wealth”. He refuses to elucidate his actual stands on anything. He just wants change! He has never taken stands as his votes have indicated. He voted almost entirely “here” or “present” on every occasion.
Even Joe Biden has qualms. I think Senator Biden is a fool but basically an honest man. He stated during the primaries that Senator Obama was inexperienced and would not have time to “learn on the job”. He has recently reaffirmed that opinion by stating that his lack of knowledge would cause an attack or other major situation within 6 months of him taking office.
This past weekend when Reporter Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, FL posed this very question of a Marxist presidency and Biden reacted very uncharacteristically. Instead of laughing it off, or simply stating a contrary view, he had a major horrendous fit. This is a very telling reaction of what Biden knows deep down inside and echoes even his most dreaded fears. The Obama campaign has since banned the station from any contact with it.
As I write this, the market appears to be continuing its plunge. If it goes below 7500, we can kiss our standard of living good-bye. Pension funds, bank accounts, and the wealth of the nation (and the world) are at risk as it has not been in a long while.
I said in my last article don’t fear, it will correct itself; and it will, if the market is left to be free. But if a socialist agenda is taken by a President Obama and the equally socialist leaders of the house and senate, forget it.
The current bail-out actions have already reduced the future buying power of the dollar to about 80 cents. Read the news, companies are either laying off workers in advance of this happening or already have. Even the media is announcing cut-backs and of all things renewing or extending low rated shows instead of buying new pilots, because it saves money.
I sincerely hope that I am 100% wrong. Only time will tell, but I am as certain as I can be this is our future. When the election is over, we will all know.
Senator McCain has his problems undoubtedly, not the least of which is his own liberal tendencies; however, I don’t think he will try to destroy our free-market system.
God help us all,
The Hammer
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
The polls are tightening. I think it may be a very interesting election night!
The truth really hurts doesn't it?
This is nothing more than another scare tactic to try to frighten people about Obama.
Of course, the utter failure of the past 8 years has put this country on the brink, and John McCain offers no departure from the failure cycle.
A vote for McCain is a vote for failure and the politics of fear.
The market always does better under a Democratic administration.
Saying Obama is an "extremist liberal" does not make it true. You are entitled to your opinion.
BTW the reason the reason the market is better (in the past) is that the Democrats inherit a sound economy and the Republicans inherit a not so sound economy and have to correct it.
Before you make a Bush comment: 2 points.
1) Bush is a fiscal liberal and grew government like no one else ever did, over 40%. But even he couldn't mess up the economy too badly, creating all of those non-productive worthless jobs.
2) Our economy is basically sound, just being screwed around with right now (Of course, that is my opinion so there is no need for you to repeat that). By shrinking government and keeping taxes low across the board, it will survive and grow. What your guy plans to do is just the opposite, hence, kiss your butt good-bye.
I like you, why have you allowed yourself to be indoctrinated into the hateful anti-Obama group?
McCain voted for the most 'socialist' piece of legislation in the history of this country, does that make McCain a Socialist/Marxist?
McCain seeks to continue the failure cycle of the past 8 years.
Actually, I did not think you were ignorant before, Bert, but I suppose I was wrong.
I am an 11th generation American and if Nobama is elected God help us all we will quickly slide down the Socialistic path spreading the wealth. Yes Obama is a Socialist, a Marxist, a Communist period. Watch him place Ayers in a powerful cabinet position. Sad days for the America my family for generations has loved. I fear the America my grandchildren will grow up in. I have spent far too much time in China and Eastern Europe-Socialism will kill America. I pray I don’t have to be a “I told you so”-praying Americans see the light and stop listening to the puppet Liberal media.
The interpretation of the markets that you present here contains no reference to the vast applicable changes in manufacturing practices, business ownership, financial management and investment placements which have altered dramatically in our country over the past ten years. An economy cannot outsource labor beyond our shores without damaging the local labor markets. An economy cannot divert its investment power to overseas markets without drying up local investment pools. An economy cannot be vibrant and healthy if the wealth earned with in it is shipped, isolated and locked up in off-shore bank accounts.
Economies require a constant re-investing and re-working of earnings within them, for the sake of production and consumerism cycles to be healthy.
In recent history, it is the Republicans who have championed and perpetrated the causes and effects that have led to our economic troubles.
Obama is no more socialist than America has always been; and he is infinitely more prudent and intelligent as regards our national economy.
We do not have a free market, we have a small number of huge corporations that suck up all the jobs in the country, have a tyrannical effect on society in their regimentation and extortion, and they refuse to pay taxes and suck the capital out of the country.
Boy are you mixed up Bert.
OK, Bert, now you have confirmed it.
I know where to find you, you are in orbit from the drugs you are taking.
The economy was great under Clinton, Bush has turned ito around (helped by 6 years of a Republican Congress).
Those are facts.
After 8 years of Bush, no matter what Obama does, things can only get better.
It is going to take years and years to undo the damage from the Republican Congress and this Republican administration (funny how we didn't complain about them being from the same party when the Republicans were in full control of Congress and the Presidency), you can't pin it on the Democratic majority in the current Congress.
It may surprise you to know that many thoughtful columnists think that of the two candidates, it is Obama who is the more moderate, pragmatic leader. He surrounds himself with people of different points of view, examines all sides of an issue, and then makes a balanced, informed decision. He is not an idealogue; he is flexible. McCain and Palin, however, are dangerous demagogues.
Though I never did give much money to the National Party, they haven't gotten one red cent from me since then and will not in the future until they start acting like Republicans should act.
Three 20th century Democratic presidents more liberal than Obama:
FDR
Harry Truman
Lyndon Johnson
FDR is as close as you can get.
HST & LBJ were conservatives compared to most liberal Dems today, not just Sen. Obama.
Obama an extreme liberal? You bet he is!
Obama has openly admitted that he is going to “share the wealth. That is his basic belief system. At any rate, it's scary, he leaves signs of it till this day when he told Joe the plumber, " I don't want to punish you for your success, but we need to spread the wealth so those below you can have your same success." Any way you slice it, that's Socialism.
Harry Truman nationalized the steel industry and LBJ pushed the most radical social reform package since the New Deal through congress.
That is my point. These guys are so far to the left: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schummer, Barney Frank, etc., he looks good.
With the exception of FDR: the others, HST, JFK, RFK, LBJ, HHH would never ever consider these guys compadrees.
I can't tolerate his ideology, which I am entitled to my opinion.
I have not mentioned his race, ethnic original, any any slur you imply. His notions that he espouse are socialist to the extreme and anti-free market. Live with it.
Since when has politicians defecting their party been of any big consequence. It happens --- in both parties ---for a myriad of reasons. It's the old, "I'm taking my ball and leaving," act. Politicians use it often.
The reason, in part, for the Republican defection after the meltdown was a revolt of the House Republicans to delay, and make sure there was still something to be brokered when McCain arrived. Republicans revolted, in part, because they were chafing at what they saw as an attempt by Democrats to jam through an agreement on the bailout early Thursday and deny McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement.
Politicians are a strange lot, and have used such moments to rebuild before, notably the 1990 bipartisan budget agreement.
More relevant to this issue, in terms of a "major" defection, is the Democratic defection, just a while back when only 53% of Clinton voters said they would vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent said they would vote for McCain, and 13% say they won't vote.
So you can remove "Defecting," from your bag of tricks.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~
What I was trying to point out is that Obama is relatively conservative compared to quite a few prominent Democrats of the 20th century. In the 50s he would have been considered a moderate. The New Deal, which informed the Democratic party of the 50s, was quite a bit to the left of Obama. Obama is to the left of Bill Clinton but in the 50s Clinton would have been a republican. Remember, John Kennedy was considered to be a conservative Democrat back in the day.
I'm sorry but I don't think Sen. Obama would ever have been considered a moderate.
As I have said many times, I sincerely hope you are right, but.....
Clinton voters are going to be voting for Obama too, all but a few nutjobs who feel they have to make a point, like the 3rd party nutjobs.
I really don't try to downplay it. Facts are facts. There are many ways to check those out.
I get a little impatient about your always wanting to base what you say on running against Bush. Remember the Democrats also voted with Bush 90% of the time. Bush is not on the ticket. It is not fair when you base your comments on that.
Furthermore, many Clinton voters will NOT be voting for Obama. They are still publicly saying they will not.
You speak of where Obama will take his ideas from, and that is what is scary. Just look back, Bruce, at the type of terrorists, criminals, etc that he associated with, ALL OF HIS LIFE, just before he became a candidate. It was only public rebellion that caused him to disassociate when he did. He personally had no inclination to do it until then. Will these associations resume after Nov. 4th?
Now the incident about his association with Khalidi has come up. You know Khalidi...a PLO spokesman. They just keep on coming. Think: Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Farrakhan, ACORN, Birth certificate. Obama has never run anything but his campaign for the past two years. His stint as a Community Organizer was a dismal failure. He lost Chicago most of it's affordable housing, while putting 6 million dollars in the pocket of his friend, and the developer there, Rezko, who is now in prison.
We will not know how history will record Bush as a president until years after his term. YOU, personally, have recorded him as the worst, and his term is not over. But, how is that relevant to this discussion? Bush is not running this time.
You may call me a nutjob, without a brain if it makes you feel better. Just know it is of no consequence to me.