Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted down the Bush
administration-proposed, and subsquently signifiantly altered, economic bailout package that was worth up to $700 billion dollars. That is a lot of money and if it makes you uncomfortable, it should. It is a lot of money.
After the bill's failure, the markets went for a huge tumble. The Dow fell in what was described as historic drops. I saw it in my own retirement investment portfolio (RRSP) and how it lost significant value over the span of a day. In looking at mutual fund and stock prices, I doubt anyone's portolio performed any differently than mine. Everything took a dive.
I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I really wonder whether this bailout package is the right thing for the U.S. Bush alluded to it in a prime-time address late last week (I believe) where he says normally he wouldn't consider bailing out those who make mistakes, and I see his point about what would happen if nothing was done, but maybe that's just what needs to be done - let's face it, the American economy is in a recession, and the signs of this have been evident for many years. My wife and I were talking recently and I think she said that it seemed like after 9/11, U.S. investments have been on a continuing spiral. I have picked up more U.S. funds in my portfolio in recent years thinking that it can't get any worse than the price for which I bought my units, but nope, the prices continue to slide.
I tend to agree with those who argue that this sends the wrong message to these companies who for years have been making risky, if not bad business decisions, taking chances on risky investments on a volatile housing market and paying their CEOs exorbitants amounts of money. To bail them out does seem to excuse these decisions, but I do realize it's not just the institutions' leaders that are affected - these firms have thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of employees who would be unemployed, and that, surely cannot help the economy.
Some have said that why should the average Joe have to chip in for the mistakes of Wall street? This is true, and I can empathize with this point, since this $700 billion is taxpayer money. I think that by not doing this, though, it's going to come back to hurt them in other ways such as being refused credit or lending for things like loans and mortgages. With no money to go around, who's going to lend it?
However, while I put the blame on these institutions for not properly vetting their potential borrowers due to greed, I also fault borrowers in general who borrow more than they can afford or take risks in taking on more credit than they can afford. But isn't this the way the culture is right now - we have these stupid payday loan companies who will be happy to lend you money at a ridiculous interest rate to help you cover things until you get your paycheque. People should realize that if you're going to one of these places, you have a bigger problem than needing a quick loan.
To me, the bailout, while stablizing the economy for the short-term, does not really address the long-term issue of pure greed, both from the lender, as well as the borrower. The bill was revamped and passed a Senate vote yesterday, but still needs to go to the house. I hope it's defeated again.
Showing posts with label u.s.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label u.s.. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Digesting Super Tuesday in the U.S. and Beyond
Well, what a week - aside from the New York Giants beating my at-the-time undefeated New England Patriots, this week had lots of excitement from the U.S. political front with Super Tuesday results. I wasn't feeling well that evening, so unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to follow the web results as they flowed in. Though I got up in the middle of the night to grab a Pepto-Bismol and quickly glanced at the results.
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
U.S. Election 2008 - Part III
I think this is probably the third blog entry focussed on next year's U.S. elections - you may wonder why I'm not talking about the any Canadian elections - for one, there won't be a federal election for a couple of years at least (in my view), and even though there will be a Ontario provincial election, it's not terribly exciting (the Liberal guy in power is barely hanging on right now, but my gut tells me that the electorate don't really want to see a Conservative in power, so they will continue to vote in the indecisive, break-yer promises, "I want to be on camera" Dalton McGuinty. Truth be told, even though I'm a die-hard card carrying Conservative, I have some mixed issues with John Tory - he may be a nice enough guy, but I don't think he's socially as Conservative as I would like (I would still vote for him, but I'd prefer to see someone else). I'm sure I'll be writing a few more things about the Ontario elections over the next few months.
OK, where was I? Oh yes, the U.S. Presidential elections next year. Well, it would look as if McCain is not a factor anymore (was he ever?) - he's still in the top 3, but he's dropping positions fast. So I think it will really be between Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts) and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. It seems like former actor and senator Fred Thompson will be on the ticket, though he has unannounced, but I don't think enough people see him as a viable force, based on his lack of experience (though I'm sure his trophy wife will garner a few donations). But I think it will be down to Romney and Giuliani. With both as potential likely candidates to be on the ticket, I'm lukewarm on both - yes, I think either would be better than any of the Democrats, but Giuliani especially is a very liberal conservative, if there was such a thing. But there have been a recent development that has been a bit of a blow to Giuliani. His own daughter has thrown her support behind Barack Obama. Doh! Mitt Romney has also been picking up a lot of momentum on Giuliani, questioning whether he, as New York mayor, made the city a hotspot for illegal immigration. Giuliani is definitely on the defensive on that one. But I look at the U.S. and think, would they really vote in Romney, a mormon?
Ah, I really wish that Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Bill Frist would put their name in the ring (I know Dick Cheney will not be doing so and has indicated numerous times). Or Sam Brownback would mysteriously start getting voter support. At this point, it seems as if the Democrats are picking up steam and the floating question seems to be - who will be the President - Obama or Clinton. I'm really hoping it won't come down to this.
Are Romney and Giuliani the best that the Republicans can offer in this election? My gut tells me that neither will stand much of a chance here against Hillary or Barack.
OK, where was I? Oh yes, the U.S. Presidential elections next year. Well, it would look as if McCain is not a factor anymore (was he ever?) - he's still in the top 3, but he's dropping positions fast. So I think it will really be between Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts) and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. It seems like former actor and senator Fred Thompson will be on the ticket, though he has unannounced, but I don't think enough people see him as a viable force, based on his lack of experience (though I'm sure his trophy wife will garner a few donations). But I think it will be down to Romney and Giuliani. With both as potential likely candidates to be on the ticket, I'm lukewarm on both - yes, I think either would be better than any of the Democrats, but Giuliani especially is a very liberal conservative, if there was such a thing. But there have been a recent development that has been a bit of a blow to Giuliani. His own daughter has thrown her support behind Barack Obama. Doh! Mitt Romney has also been picking up a lot of momentum on Giuliani, questioning whether he, as New York mayor, made the city a hotspot for illegal immigration. Giuliani is definitely on the defensive on that one. But I look at the U.S. and think, would they really vote in Romney, a mormon?
Ah, I really wish that Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Bill Frist would put their name in the ring (I know Dick Cheney will not be doing so and has indicated numerous times). Or Sam Brownback would mysteriously start getting voter support. At this point, it seems as if the Democrats are picking up steam and the floating question seems to be - who will be the President - Obama or Clinton. I'm really hoping it won't come down to this.
Are Romney and Giuliani the best that the Republicans can offer in this election? My gut tells me that neither will stand much of a chance here against Hillary or Barack.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Mark My Words - Joe Lieberman Will Become a Republican
It's interesting - I was watching the 2000 U.S. elections and there are two things that I remember, aside from being glad that Bush won. 1) Al Gore was a complete nutjob - OK, my wife saw him on Oprah and thought he was the dream, but I tend to me a bit more objective about these kinds of things...OK, seven years later, he's on the Apple board, he's had celebrity status over his global environmental "intitiatives" and I guess he's now writing a kids book. He's been a bureaucrat in Washington all is life, but I'm not sure whether he actually says anything substantive - he likes to talk and use modern-day phrases and terms and looks like a techie compared to his contemporaries, but I think he's all flash and no substance. 2) Joseph Lieberman. I totally resented the fact that the Republicans did not have this guy. He is probably more of a true Republican than Giuliani or McCain is (both of of which are very soft on their social issues - look at their voting records and family life). I was laughing when I found out that James Dobson would not support McCain. I would have to agree with Dobson here. And there is something about Giuliani I don't like. I'd rather see Sam Brownback, but he doesn't have a chance to win the GOP nomination (sad to say but true). Anyway, I remember watching Lieberman on the debates and in addressing crowds and thinking, "if there was ever a Jewish dude who would really break down the stereotype, it is him"). Interestingly enough, in the next few years, we would see him siding with Republicans on a number of things (including the 2003 plan to go to war, as well as recent statements that he will vote against the Democrat's bill to set a timeline for troop withdrawal. Since he lost the primary in mid-2006 (forgot the guy he ran against - Ted something??), he has ran as an independent and has tremendous support from the Republicans. I think he was re-elected (albeit as an independent) back to the Senate during the 2006 mid-term elections. But I suspect that come 2008, there's probably a good chance he'll become a Republican. I have never saw him as a true Democrat, and I think it would be a tremendous boost to have him join the GOP. Heck, if I was in the U.S., I'd vote for him, maybe even as Prez (of course, I'm not even sure if he wants to run a Prez, but he ran for VP, so ya never know...
Saturday, March 31, 2007
My Picks for RNC and DNC in 2008
I've always had an active interest in Canadian politics, but U.S. politics always seems consistently intriguing (I even have a Bush/Cheney '04 golf shirt that I wear from time to time, though I don't think I'm allowed to wear it into work anymore (too political). Well, none of these people need and introduction, so quickly, here are my picks for who will win the Republican and Democratic conventions and will represent their party in the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections.
DNC:
Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Hillary at all, and even though I'm a staunch conservative, part of my essense is being capitalistic and as such, I cashed in on a worthwhile investment - a hand-signed copy of Hillary's book "It Takes a Village". I will sell it once she reaches the apex of her political career and I can get several thousand dollars for it. So from an altruistic sense, I am rooting for her (only so my investment can soar in value)
Why I think she will beat out Barack Obama: Sadly, I don't think that the U.S. is quite ready for a Black prez just yet, pure and simple, despite what TV shows like 24 would have you believe. I think Obama's capable of leadership and while I disagree with almost everything he stands for, I would choose him over Hillary if I had to (she definitely has secret agendas, as her time with Bill has shown). But I think Hillary will win. I don't forsee any other candidates giving these two a run for the money. Yes, even John Edwards - he's a tad too ambitious, in my view - and yes, I feel sympathy for his wife, but he's not one of those "lead by example" types. Plus, I saw him on the 2004 VP debate with Cheney, and Cheney smoked him.
GOP / RNC:
I am lukewarm with the available frontrunner choices. I would go with Sam Brownback in an instant, but we all know that unfortunately, he's not going to win, since he's considered way too conservative/right wing for the mass electorate (last I read, he was at the bottom of the heap). So here's my predictions.
John McCain - Yes, I know that Giuliani is the current frontrunner, but he carries a lot of baggage with him. Failed marriages, a very soft social conservative stance...I doubt he will get the evangelical wing support. I also know while James Dobson and FOTF has stated he will not support McCain, not everyone is a Dobson supporter and McCain does have a distinguished service record for his country. I think this will be trumpeted in the next year. It's too bad Cheney's not running - he would be perfect. I would love to see Condoleeza Rice run, as she would make an awesome prez, but once again, I don't think the U.S. electorate is ready to pick a Black President. Besides, her being a single woman also will probably hurt her if she runs, since I think most Americans would prefer to see a family man or family woman in the white house.
DNC:
Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Hillary at all, and even though I'm a staunch conservative, part of my essense is being capitalistic and as such, I cashed in on a worthwhile investment - a hand-signed copy of Hillary's book "It Takes a Village". I will sell it once she reaches the apex of her political career and I can get several thousand dollars for it. So from an altruistic sense, I am rooting for her (only so my investment can soar in value)
Why I think she will beat out Barack Obama: Sadly, I don't think that the U.S. is quite ready for a Black prez just yet, pure and simple, despite what TV shows like 24 would have you believe. I think Obama's capable of leadership and while I disagree with almost everything he stands for, I would choose him over Hillary if I had to (she definitely has secret agendas, as her time with Bill has shown). But I think Hillary will win. I don't forsee any other candidates giving these two a run for the money. Yes, even John Edwards - he's a tad too ambitious, in my view - and yes, I feel sympathy for his wife, but he's not one of those "lead by example" types. Plus, I saw him on the 2004 VP debate with Cheney, and Cheney smoked him.
GOP / RNC:
I am lukewarm with the available frontrunner choices. I would go with Sam Brownback in an instant, but we all know that unfortunately, he's not going to win, since he's considered way too conservative/right wing for the mass electorate (last I read, he was at the bottom of the heap). So here's my predictions.
John McCain - Yes, I know that Giuliani is the current frontrunner, but he carries a lot of baggage with him. Failed marriages, a very soft social conservative stance...I doubt he will get the evangelical wing support. I also know while James Dobson and FOTF has stated he will not support McCain, not everyone is a Dobson supporter and McCain does have a distinguished service record for his country. I think this will be trumpeted in the next year. It's too bad Cheney's not running - he would be perfect. I would love to see Condoleeza Rice run, as she would make an awesome prez, but once again, I don't think the U.S. electorate is ready to pick a Black President. Besides, her being a single woman also will probably hurt her if she runs, since I think most Americans would prefer to see a family man or family woman in the white house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)