I’m confused about the current litigation against Richard Fuld and the belief by some that he sold his house to his wife for 100$ to make sure it couldn’t be touched in a lawsuit. It doesn’t make sense for people to believe this man’s personal assets should be seized simply because the company he was running (Lehman Brothers) went under. His poor management costs those shareholders billions of dollars, was probably partly responsible for the current problems we see in the financial sector, and may have been fraud, (Though so many other institutions were engaging in the same behavior this seems unlikely). But, none of these things should impact Fuld’s personal assets.

Read more…

As Bushes term winds down I had hopes he would cling to some core conservative beliefs and refuse to cooperate on the auto industry bailout. First he allowed the financial industry to be bailed out with tax payer dollars. I think this was the wrong move but I’ll admit there are good reasons for this. Then he makes a speech in November defending the free market and explain why we must allow it to work. “Great”, I think to myself, “Now this is a policy I can get behind”. Now, imagine my disgust at reading this in a recent AP article:

At the White House, Bush declared the economy was in a recession, and he urged a gridlocked Congress to act quickly on a multibillion-dollar [auto] industry bailout _ with taxpayer protections.

It is clear that Bush has no idea what he thinks on the economy or free market capitilism. He can’t even keep his story straight week to week. I should go stand on the corner near an on-ramp with a sign reading “Will Vote for True Conservatives”. Heck, I’d even work for one.

With Obama winning the election it’s all the rage to talk about how great things will be now. Specifically, there seems to be a lot of talk about how the economy will improve because Bush won’t be in office anymore. Our current economic predicament was all his fault, didn’t you hear?
Read more…

A newcomer to national politics, he claimed to transcend partisan labels. He moved to the center during the campaign, at a time when the Democrats held large congressional majorities. In a troubled economy, he told voters he would keep taxes down for most Americans, limit spending, and balance the budget, all while implementing ambitious social programs. He planned to cut military spending to free money for other purposes, but assured moderates and conservatives that when it came to America’s enemies, he would be tougher than the Republicans. The media, droves of moderates, and some conservatives believed him, having pegged him as a man of character.

His name was Jimmy Carter, the year was 1976, and he won. His presidency helps us predict the likely results of an Obama victory in 2008.

This quote is from Mark Moyar who has an interesting article on what we can learn from Carter’s presidency, and what it tells us about a possible President Obama. Let’s explore some history from the  70’s and see if we can learn from it.

Read more…

What effect would each candidate have on the economy? Or would they have any effect? Several items need to be taken into account to make an accurate judgment. What are their beliefs regarding things like taxes and the size of government? There are also other factors that play into the potential effects. The majority in Congress is currently democratic and that trend looks to continue at least for this election cycle. This means that a potential future President Obama would be more powerful than a President McCain. Given the majority, it would be easier for Obama to enact his policies and ideas than it would be for McCain. What does a vote for each candidate mean? Which direction will your vote take this country? Read more…