Bailout, DOA; a betrayal of public trust

The Financial Bailout Bill: A Band-aide for Cancer!

 Following is an attempt by a learned-layperson’s to offer an overview of a dysfunctioning-economy and the inept Government action that was taken in order to deal with this awesome quandary.

 

By signing the Bailout bill, Presidential candidates of both major political parties betrayed their constituents!

 

McCain who vowed that when President he would veto any legislation with “pork” in it, and Obama who promised not to allow anything to get by him that is not a change from the way Washington does business, both approved the Bailout Bill, pork, and all.

 

Today’s economic calamity is of Biblical proportions. The problem is so severe that it demands immediate and decisive measures, measures to keep irreparable damage from happening to the Global economy. The October 3, 2008 Congressional Financial Bailout Bill does not qualify as such a measure.

 

The Congressional Bailout Bill is paramount to covering an open wound with a band-aide, and hoping that it will go away; it seldom does. Understanding the root-cause of the ulcer is a pre-requisite for effective treatment. Managing the wound requires that the cause, not the symptoms, be eliminated.

 

The most important element that drives modern economies is energy. Energy is the lifeline of human existence, be it for individual use, industry, or government. For many years the United States did not need to worry about a sufficient supply of energy to drive its highly complex economy. The US has a robust domestic production, and until the emergence of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC,) had an uninterrupted supply of Middle East oil.

 

Dealing with the Geo-Political implication would require a very lengthy work on its own; suffice it to say that it is an integral part of the US economic well being. It goes without saying that adjustments to US foreign policy will be required if in the short-term energy problems are to be solved. The Presidential candidates must start to demonstrate their understanding and willingness to address this issue.

 

The Congressional Financial Bailout Bill is not a positive measure. The Bill’s reception by Stock Markets in the United States and around the globe was less than enthusiastic in spite of United States Administration attempts to convince whoever would listen that the bill, if not a panacea, would prevent a disaster of untold proportions. That notwithstanding, the Congressional Bailout Bill will likely create more problems than those that it may solve. The bill represents a sad day for a lame duck Administration, and for the many legislators who signed it.

 

Efforts to shore-up the bill by the powers-to-be in the US were reminiscence to those by handlers of the Emperor in Hans Christen Andersen novel: “The Emperor’s New Cloth.”  Just like in the Andersen’s novel, everyone accepted the Bailout Package until those more naïve of us who cried out and said that the Bill is naked of value, void of meaningful content.

 

The primary reason for the bill is to develop confidence in the financial institutions of the United States. Confidence in financial institutions could get the public to spend more, and that in turn should drive the economy forward. At this time, driving the economy forward may not be the right thing to do.

 

In the case of a recession economic stimulation is normally the acceptable remedy, but the US economy is beyond that stage. Recession may be a contributor to today’s economic tribulations; it is not the primary cause. The malaise of today’s economy suggests that it is a Dysfunctional Economy. In contrast to a recession that requires stimulation in order to be defeated, a dysfunction worsens if it is encouraged to move forward.

 

A dysfunction requires a remedy at its root-causes, not at the symptoms. To help a dyslexic person, for example, the person is not forced to read more but rather to deal with the root-cause of the [learning] malfunction. Remedies for a dysfunction must be at the source, not at the symptom of the situation.

 

After the present financial crises began, the loss of consumer confidence caused demands for energy to decline, oil reserves to increase, and prices to fall. Increased confidence, and the spending it should encourage, will tax the capacity of United States energy resources, and cause prices to rise again.

 

There are industries that are solely dependent on the price of oil for their survival. To many in these industries there is not much price elasticity for energy when it relates to their survival. An airline CEO recently suggested that airline companies could not survive beyond $200.00 a barrel cost of crude oil. Even if there is some price flexibility, it is not infinitely elastic and could reach a point of no return in a very short time. 

 

There is the trucking industry and the consumer who buys products that it delivers. There are the shipping lines, industries that use a great deal of electricity, and other services that have to transfer the cost of fuel to their customers.

 

Giving the public more confidence in economic institutions, which will result in more spending to stimulate the economy, could be like pouring gasoline on a ranging fire. The added need for energy, for example, will be more than enough to exacerbate the situation and perhaps push the system to its breaking point. Without provisions in the Bailout Bill to either reduce the need for, or improve the supply of energy, the bill would only serve to make a bad situation worse.

 

The Congressional Financial Bailout Bill was ill conceived, poorly written, and opens the doors to an economic disaster beyond what presently exists. To add salt to the wounds, the bill includes pork barrel spending, an authorization to spend taxpayers’ money for politicians’ pet projects.

 

Some highlights:

·        Bailout package will stimulate public spending and as a byproduct will cause an increase in the cost of energy.

o       Endanger trucking industry and increase cost of all products that they transport

o       Endanger the already shaky airline industry

§         Increase level of unemployment

o       Endanger all shipping business and increase cost of products it transports

§         Increase inflation due to all items in this segment

·        Will not relieve individual mortgage holders, especially those with ARM loans

o       Foreclosures will continue to rise

o       Real estate values will continue to decline

·        Reduce the value of the US Dollar and the US global completeness

o       Increase inflation in the US

o       Increase business failures for those companies participating in the global market

 

Much more can be said, but it is sufficient to say that the United States Administration and the United States Congress MUST return to work and bring-about responsible action to deal with a rapidly declining US (and with it,) global economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why it is not possible for either pure Socialism, or pure Capitalism to survive? (Part II)

Examples of actual, and nearly pure Socialism can be only found among cults, small Israeli Kibbutzim, or highly autocratic societies. Since Socialism requires collective, rather than individual incentives for members to better themselves, a centralized authority must exercise tight control on activities within the community. The Kibbutz, as are most cults are relatively small entities that is relative easy to control. Countries that attempt to adopt Socialism have much more difficult taskd and must deploy high level control over the population; Cuba may be a case in point.

By its nature, a socialist system without tight control, is likely to end up in chaos; an out of control disaster.

A purely capitalistic system in one that attempts to allow people to fend for themselves, counting on an honest, and pure hearted subjects.  Time and time again, most recently under George W. Bush, people proved that greed takes over when it is not controlled by government, and shades of anarchy start to rear their nugly heads.

Similar to Socialism, Capitalism may thrive in very small entities, but even then, such as in the case Monaco, Capitalism must call on Socialist elements to have a satisractorly functioning system. As in the case of Monaco, it call on outside government help, such as Monaco’s dependence on France and on the European Union for a large number services, and activities.

History of the human race suggest that for an economic system to succeed and prosper, elements of several econimic theories must be deployed. The United States, during its most prosperous times, was a Capitalistc society deploying numerous socialistic elemts to prevent it from become an anarchy and collapse. At best, the Unites States can be labled: Quasi-Capitalism.

Since, regardless of what some religious suggest, not all people are created equal, a system allowing its people to act strictly on their own self interests, disparities that result can only cause conflict, that is likely to eventually bring about anarchy. The US uses socialistic elements to avert disaster by offering social security, a tax system that does some [small] amount of income equalization, securities trade control (under the SEC,) and other government controls of trade and the acquisition of wealth.

By the same token socialistic societies borrow numerous capitalistic elements to keep from falling into chaotic situations.  Union labors, strong Socialistic tools, are kept from monopolizing all jobs, allowing for some level of free trade, and not controlling individual wealth by allowing personal possessions beyond just what is required for a living, are but a few of the capitalistic elements used by most successfully functioning socialistic system.

Summing up: Pure Capitalism can only lead to anarchy, while pure Socialism can only lead to chaos. History clearly demonstrates that a hybrid economic system, each using elements from various economic theories, is what required to survive and succeed in human society. The mix of system depends on culture (including religion,) environment, and system of government.

Palin: Shades of Agnew, Quail & Cheney.

Sharah Palin remain on the national political scene primerily due to un-relenting media exposure, be it negative, or otherwise. Few days go by when Palin’s name does not appear someplace in the media, a strategy that may hurt Palin because it would give the public more than enough time to examine her weaknesses before the 2012 election.

Palin reminds this author of three GOP Veeps:

1) Agnew with his shady dealings. Palin with all the corruption investigations; where there is smoke, there must be fire.

2) Quail’s inarticulate speeches are much like those Plain gives whenever she has an opportunity.

3) Cheney’s, arrogance. Palin suggesting that she is destine to higher calling, when to date she seems to have demostrated that she is a product of the Peter Principle: Reaching [and exceeding] her level of incompetence.

In his desperation to line-up some conservative votes, John McCain created a monster that may well give the Democrats the best Presidential opponent that they could wish for 2012: Sarah Palin.

Since elected: Obama slowly, deliberatly, and proudly, exposing his roots! If re-elected, will there be a Koranic-inauguration?

During the 2008 primaries and Presidential election, President Obama was careful to  keep his heritage hidden. Obama never used his Islamic middle name, Hussein, until the inauguration, and he kept insisting that he is not now, and never was a Muslim.

President Obama does not speak of his Islamic roots, he lets the public accept him as a Muslim since he was born into Islam, and in Islam, leaving the religion is a mortal sin.  Obama openly addressed his African heritage while in Ghana, bowed to a Muslim king, and stated that the United States never was and will never be an enemy of Islam. In the case of suggesting that the United States is not an enemy of Islam, President Obama leaves out a number of critical items: 1) Islam, through Koranic declarations is an enemy of the largely infidel United States, and (2) Most of Islam is on record is being an enemy and wishing to destroy Israel, and bu virtueof Israel being a close ally and friend of the United States, don’t enemies of ypour friends are your enemies, as well? 

Rather then to jump in and admit to his Islamic and [black] African tendencies and cause a furor among conservatives, President Obama is slowly, and deliberatly offering the American public doses of his REAL being.  By the time 2012 arrives, unless President Obama performs badly as President, his religion and race be so much an integral of the man that the public would not even object to President Obama being sworn into office, using the Koran and not the Christan Bible.

Obama’s “cultural Islamization” of the Unites States (Part II.) And, members of the “Nation of Islam” are NOT Muslims!

Before the emergence of Barak Hussein Obama as a dark knight on his white horse, a number African Americans (many of them athletes, and entertainers of other ilks,) started to assume Arabic names, and as early as 1930, had a unique religion established, just for them.

It is important to understand that the Nation of Islam (NOI), is not Islam, but that it is rather a religion that was established in the United States by and for black people. NOI is not Islam, it does not accept some of Islam’s most central teachings, unlike Islam, it does set a race, the black people, apart from all other races.

Not to dwell on the fact that the NOI is an entirely separate entity from Islam, let me just add that the NOI does not accept Koranic law (the Sharia,) it does not believe that Muhammad had the last word from Allah, as Muslims do, and unlike Islam, it does not accept that Adam and Eve were the first people created by Allah, they rather accept that black people were the first humans to be created, and they were created by black scientists.

Even though Barak Obama, at one time, or another, had dealing with Louis Farrakhan, there is no reason to believe that Obama has any interest in NOI; notwithstanding the fact that Louis Farrakhan, on at least one recent occasion, proclaimed Obama the Messiah. 

Barak Hussein Obama, by virtue of his birthrights, is a mainstream Muslim, even though he may not be practicing the religion. Since Barak Obama spent most of his formative years under Islamic influence, one must accept the fact that Obama’s thinking, instincts, and character are in some part of Islamic nature.

Since some of those things are inherited and are present from birth, and some of those things are instilled into a person during the formative years, they are an integral part of that person. The person may not be aware of their existence, they nevertheless exist. If nothing else, it is fair to assume, that if in no other way, Obama’s Islam clearly exist in his subconscience.

The “Islamization” that is occurring under President Obama is not a grass-roots movement, nor is it a popular event; to date the phenomena manifests itself in Obama’s presentations of the United States national views to the rest of the world. There are many, especially conservative in the United States, who vehemently object to the face Obam put on the country, but for all the objectors, Obama’s popularity makes his presentations appear to have popular support.

The image Obama is carving for the United States is of a country whose Muslim population, Obama says, makes it one of the largest Muslim nation in the world. Obama also says that the United States never was and never will an enemy of Islam, a statement not based on facts and one that leaves out the fact that the Koran consider all infidels its enemies, and the United States is a country made up mostly of infidels (non Muslims.) Not only that, much of Islam declared Israel its enemy, and isn’t your friends’ enemies your enemies, as well?

Barak Obama’s Islamization of the United States will not likely to lead to a situation where school children have to abide by the five Pillars or Islam, or pray to Allah five time a day. It may, however, lead to a President being sworn into office on a Koran, rather than a Bible. During his first Inauguration President Obama, for the first time in many month, revealed and use his Muslim name, Hussein. Should Obama get reelected, it would not be surprising, that with right wing political election-pressure becoming inconsequential, Obama may use the Koran for his swearing in ceremony, and that sooner, or later, he may openly embrace Islam as his religion of choice. 

As a footnote: The Nation of Islam does not contribute to any Islamization of the United States, it is simply a fringe group without  substantial commonality with Islam.

Obama, another Quixotic Jimmy Carter?

Jimmy carter and George  W. Bush, are likely the two worse Presidents in United State history; will Barak Obama join the two, or will barak Obama pull away and become a great President?

Characteristics that Obama shares with Carter:

1) Obama and Carter are smart! Both man posses a great deal of knowledge, but neither is very good at applying that knowledge. There is a Navajo saying: Knowledge is of the past, wisdom of the future; based on that saying, Obama and Carter seem to lack wisdom. Or, in the case of Obama, is it a as was often , repeated during the 2008 Presidential election, and as Ahmadinejad recently said, that the man, Obama, simply lacks experience?

2) Both Obama and Carter are dreamers, and neither is realistic, or pragmatic, both are actually Quixotic type dreamers.

3) Carter and Obama are naive, both man believe in the goodness of man, and fail to face reality.

There are also differences:

Carter is a man of character who believe in loyalties and commitments; Obama is an opportunist who would drop friends off the bus if it serves his purpose.

Carter is a man of God. Obama is either a Wright-ilk Christan, or due to birthrights, a Muslim.

Obama is a great orator, Carter is not.

Contrasting the two man with Ronald Reagan:

Reagan was a visionary, neither Obama, nor Carter fit that mold.

Reagan was a great communicator, neither Carter, nor Obama are. Carter was simply inept at communicating with people; Obama, the great orator that he is, unlike Reagan who spoke to people,  speaks AT, not TO people.

Will Obama, the Quixote dreamer that he is, the man who resembles Carter in so many ways, be able to carve a different niche and not end up as just another inept US President?

Will [Jewish] Israel survive Obama?

There are many religion associate sovereign nations, be they Islamic Republics, Christian Democracies, or what-have-you. The United States model of a government where state and church are separated may make more sense than do religion affiliated nations, but those do exist, and may remain.

Israel’s nature as a Jewish (Democracy) was not entirely by choice. Jewish people were not welcomed by many nations while Adolf Hitler was exterminating members of their religion, and they needed a place where they would be accepted for what they were; Israel became the choice.

There are those who claim that Israel’s character as a Jewish state was a divine edict to the world, but not hearing directly from that source, let’s simply accept that the Jews in Israel are there due need, not necessarily due to a Jehova directive.

All that notwithstanding, Israel can only remain a Jewish state as long as Jews make up the majority of its population. Allowing the right of return Palestian refugees may sooner-or-later change the composition of the population and cause Israel to cease to be a Jewish stste. The right of return is not the only thing that endanger the Jewish state. From Iran’s formal declaration that it would destroy Israel, to those from the likes of Hammas, Hezbollah, and other Muslim entities that would like to see the Jewish state disappear.

In nearly six months as President of the United States, Barak Hussein Obama, through both words and action, demonstrated Islamic sympathies, and character. Other actions by Obama have been responsible for eroding the alliance between Israel and the United States, an alliance that lasted and remained strong for over sixty years.

Obama may not be a practicing Muslim, but his actions demonstrate the instincts, and character of a Muslim; while his words clearly suggest sympathies towards Islam. The President’s behavior clearly suggest that a cultural Islamization is taking place in the United States, a dangerous phenomena, if there ever was one.

Assuring Iran, as Obama recently did, that he would not approve of Israel taking-out Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and telling the world that the United States will never be an enemy of Islam, also increases Israel chance of surviving as a Jewish state.

Obama’s and the betrayal of Israel!

Obama’s and the betrayal of Israel, and the chasm grows!

Notwithstanding Rham Emanuel Israeli connection, the fact that Hilary Clinton would have not been voted into the Senate without NY’s Jewish vote, and Joe Biden’s self proclaimed Zionism, the Obama Administration continues to enlarge the chasm between the United States and Israel.

Speeches to the Islamic world seeking friendship and forgiveness, set the tone, Obama appears to prefer Islamic alliances to one with Israel.

When Obama attempted to orderNetanyahu not to authorize more building on the West Bank, the aura of friendship was replaced with a fundamentally adversarial relationship.

When Obama proclaimed to the world that Islam was never, and will never an enemy of the United States he failed to realize many things, not the least of are early declaration by most Islamic nations that Israel is their enemy, one that they wish to destroy. Isn’t a friend’s enemy your enemy?

Most recently Biden, and than Obama, stated t the world that the United States did not give Israel the green-light to take-out Iran’s nukes. Since the Iran nuclear issue has to do with Israel’s security, how dare Obama tell the Israelis that they are not to defend themselves? Or, was the message another capitulation to Ahmadinejad who seems to have Obama, just where he wants him!

Will Obama order US forces to shoot down Israeli planes & missiles flying over Iraq towards Iran? Or, was Obama’s statement that Israel does not have the green-light, another overture towards Islam, or particularly Ahmadinejad?

Will Obama order United States forces to shoot-down Israeli planes flying over Iraq on their way to take-out Iran’s Nukes?

In his political life it did not take Obama much thought to drop out of his favor the likes of the Reverend Wright, his mentor, uncle, and friend  of over twenty years, when the Reverend became a political liability. As soon as they became obvious political liabilities, Obama dropped the likes of Ayers, and Farrakahn, off the bus; loyalties seem to mean very little to President Obama.

His two-faced character, coupled with his Islamic instinct and character, is also obvious from his behavior towards Israel, one of the United States closest and better allies. Not long ago, Obama tried to dictate to Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel is not to build more in the West Banl;  in its wisdom, Israel justauthorized fifty new units; in your face, Obama…

Obama unequivical statement that the United States did not give Israel the green-light to take-out Iran’s nuclear capabilities, is another arrogant and insensitive demonstration of his ineptness as President. Barak Hussein Obama seem to not realize that Israel is a sovereign nation that does not need his permission in order to defend itself, and taking-out Iran’s nukes is an important step in guarding Israel’s security.

When speaking about not giving Israel the gree-light, Obamakept suggesting that he would like to yse diplomacy with Iran. This recent statement, in the face of Ahmadinejad making mockery of democracy, and the United States, demonstrates Obama lack of understanding of the world and reality. Obama actions support Ahamdinejad claims that he, Obama, is too inexperienced and naive to be effective as a world leader, a claim that was repeated once and once again duting the 2008 US Presidential election.

Obama’a religion: Is a Wright-ilk Christian preferable to a Muslim? Or, does a President relgion matter?

Obama’s religion: Is a Wright-ilk Christian preferable to a Muslim? Or, does a President religion matter?

Only one US President was not a Christan Protestant, and John F. Kennedy, the Catholic President, did not seem to have his religion play a role in the conduct of his office.

In the case of Barak Hussein Obama, his obvious sympathies towards Islam, using the name Hussein (a name he avoided until elected) at the inauguration, and his open overtures towards the Islamic world, suggest that religion may matter.

During the Presidential campaign Obama kept claiming that he is not, and never was a Muslim. After the election he more-or-less openly admitted that he was born a Muslim, and had a non-trivial amount of exposure to Islam in his youth. Obama then informed the world that as a grown up, under the tutelage of the Reverend Wright, he became a Christion. He was an active member of Wright’s church for over twenty years, or until anti-United States sermons by Wright were made known to the American public.

Obama, whose wedding was performed by the Reverend Wright, and whose daughter were baptised by Wright, dropped out of Wright’s church as soon as Wright bacame a political liability. It would be naive for anyone of intelligence to believe that Obama did not know of Wright’s radical anti-Jewish, and anti-the [white] US views, while a member of the church.

Only recently the Reverend Wright openly, and in Public,  repeated his anti-Jewish views, at a time when his protoge, President Obama, was putting pressure on Israel to capitulate to US demands that would clearly endanger its security, and would benefit its Islamic neigbors.

Obama has been demonstrating Islamic sympathies, and instincts, and also behavior patterns of Islamic character; if re-elected, would Obama use a Koran for his swearing him into office? Would Obama openly embrace Islam if re-elected? The President seems very comfortable in that mode.

Assuming that Barak Hussein Obama is elected for a second term and then openly embraces Islam as his religion of choice, would that be detrimental to the United States?  Or, would a Muslim Obama be much like was the Catholic Kennedy, and leave religion out of picture?

To date Obama’s Islamic sympathies are items of concern since they are already damaging a fragile US influence in the world. Not responding more forcefully to a bogus Iranian election, and letting that Islamic nation make mockery out of democracy, was a clear weakness, an inept discharging of Obama’s duty as the President of the United States.

But then, what if Obama was a devout followers of Wright-ilk Christianity? In that configuration would Obama be openly anti-Zionist, push to legally give African Americans minorities more rights than white people (i. e. the New-Haven fireman case that the Supreme Court just set right?)

Is President Obama a departure from the most important seperation of church and stae? Is Obama leading the United States towrds a role of an archaic religious-republic? 

The United States Constitution was written in a way that no one man can lead the country into a disastrous state. Let us just hope that either Obama gets his head straight and comes to realize the damage his behavior is causing, or that the checks and balances in the system continue to function and that Obama is steered away from his religion-associated ways.

Ahmadinejad: A Jewish/Aryan attempting to lead Islam

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the small man who was just re-appointed Prime Minister by the Ayatollahs, is a person with typical little-man, “Napoleonic,” complex; not only driven by his smallish size, he is also pushing himself  beyond reason because of his unmistakeably Jewish mannerism and facial features.

With looks of a 19th Century caricature of a Jew, sounding like a Jew, and mannerism, especially mannerism; Ahmadinejad walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and act like a duck, he must be a duck, or in this case: A Jew.

Ahmadinejad Holocaust denial is but another attempt to maintain a posture of a the uniter who, much like Hitler, s unifier that can put together a Superior ruling race, while realizing, just like Hitler did that there is Jewish blood in the veins.