It looks obvious

Well I shouldn’t be surprise that someone that call paying more taxes patriotism invents new history, but yet I am. I have the feeling Biden knew that FDR was not the President in 1929, and that when he was a candidate he campaigned with pretty conservative agenda - and still he thought that it will be a good idea to say something like this:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,’” Barack Obama’s running mate recently told the “CBS Evening News.”

And although he got the history completely wrong, and the conclusions are as wrong as the facts - I don’t think it will damage his campaign even a little bit. And that is the real shame!

“Where once more-marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed by individual applicants and to price that risk appropriately. These improvements have led to rapid growth in subprime mortgage lending.”

The former chairman of the organization that many people hope will assume more responsibilities of oversight over the financial markets.

Short, and right on the money:

That’s how much Paulson’s plan might cost. That’s a lot of zeros. But, hey, no one said socialism was cheap, did they?

It is sad to see how the promise of individual liberty and freedom being destroyed, not because it failed but because it was poorly represented.

Recently the voices that calling for tighter control of the government on the market are much louder than usual. The crashing of investment banks and the threat of spreading the credit crisis into a full recession, along with massive tax money given as bailout to failing business, are among the reasons for such calls. But while many rushing to blame the risks of the free market, and the unreasonable greedy private sector, as a main reason to more government oversight - they are forgetting that the government had a major role in creating the credit crisis:

Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more “affordable” loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

[...]

The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.

[...]

In 1995, President Bill Clinton’s HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

So maybe instead of increasing government oversight we should do the opposite and simply reduce it?

With the stock market continue it is diving today it might not be popular, it might be not popular but I’m still praising greed. I have to credit McCain and say that his attacks on selfishness and the so called greed predate the current crisis, but it doesn’t change the fact that he is no better in this respect than his opponent (some might even argue that he is worse). What I found as more offensive, and stupid, is the believe that the regulatory work McCain did, as a member of the commerce committee, had any positive contribution to the creation of the BlackBerry.

It was much more thanks to selfish greed than any regulatory work that contributed to any invention, including the BlackBerry and the day that McCain will start to grasp that will be the first day I might consider him as the lesser of two evils.

When I read this news report back in April I knew I have to keep it:

Campaigning for his wife in North Carolina, former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday that he’d be “very surprised if oil goes below a hundred dollars a barrel again in my lifetime.”

One this for sure - Mr. Clinton should be very happy that his lifespan is not depended on the public’s memory. It is also telling us something about the quality of market predictions and economy assessment done on the campaign trail, but today we will only enjoy the gotcha feeling

I must provide another short note about Oil prices, with at least the same quality of Clinton’s prediction. Oil price reached its peak the day before I left my job - since than it drop about $50 (about 34%) in a pretty short period. The demand didn’t really changed, the supply is basically the same and dollar is still very weak. The only significant change is the fact that I’m unemployed. Therefore, and since it is important for strong global economy I need to be paid to remain unemployed at all cost!  

Watching Sarah Palin’s interview made me wonder doubt how intelligent she is. I disagree with many statements that she made, and I think many of them were the results of extreme ignorance and very simplistic understanding of the world. If I was her opponent I would be glad to use a lot of what she said to discredit her as a serious candidate for the role of Vice President. Although, as a side note, one might argue that intelligence was not a qualifying litmus test for the role of VP before - nor for the President.

But when I read this criticism, arguing that Palin isn’t a women because she didn’t pass some ideological test is not only stupid but also offensive. Even when I was young I always consider those who dared other to prove their masculinity as stupid, I consider those who daring women, or any other groups, to abide by some strict ideological line to prove their physical being flat out stupid. But it is worse - those who appointed themselves to be the gender guardian - in the name of equality and rights - are too often the worse in breaking social barrier that should have never existed:

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party’s cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

Wouldn’t it be simply smarter to say that Palin is wrong on the women right to choose, she is wrong on foreign policy (or maybe wrong would be to generous in her case) and wrong on any other list of issues?

Not only that the LP choose a plain conservative as its nominee for presidential candidate they also attached to him a complete idiot as running mate. I was hopping to support an LP candidate, but thanks to the poor choices this party insist on making I am left with the “no vote” option.

What is a patriot? Wikipedia tells us that “Patriotism is commonly defined as love of and/or devotion to one’s country”. This is still somewhat vague - is it necessary for one, in order to be considered as patriot, to served in the armed forces and put his life at risk to defend one’s country? Or is it enough to support the national team in the Olympic games? Or maybe in order to be a patriot one have to support measures that limits one’s civil liberties? The answer is simple - Patriot is one who is willing to give up his liberty, property and life so politician, very much like Joe Biden, can trade it for power.

It never cease to shock me - the gall of those politician, the cynicism deceiving other people to harness their ideal, their values and they willingness to do the right things. You can call Joe Biden’s plan in many names - armed robbery come to mind - but they have nothing to do with patriotism.

Via Below the Beltway

Last month I learned that we are all Georgians now dragged into another stupid conflict without any clear understanding of the region, the forces and the consequences. Now I’m reading that I’m to be blamed in the credit and real estate crisis:

Liberals are blaming the banks, and conservatives the government, for the push into no money down housing purchases. But the fact is, we’re all at fault. Everyone in the country–buyers, sellers, financial advisors, bankers, regulators–became convinced that owning a home was a surefire ticket to wealth, and that therefore everyone could and should buy one. Now we’re surprised that we’ve gotten into exactly the same trouble as everyone else who thinks they’ve got a way to make money without working.

I’m sorry to disappoint those who are seeking to create false solidarity here - it isn’t my fault and taking my money to bailout people who made irresponsible decision is immoral. I took responsible loan I bought a smaller house than I would have wished too so it will be in my calculated budget, the only reason I’m being included in this mess is by making it harder on me to pay my own mortgage while saving other people - mostly bankers who were blinded by greed.

You might argue that providing safety net to those who cannot afford the house they bought and that saving the banking system is crucial for the economy. I would disagree with this argument but I think it is a valid one; however arguing that we are, all of us, in fault - and as a result should morally responsible to pay for the recovery effort - is plain simple wrong.