Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Re: FW: OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WON'T STIMULATE

I would think that as long as the projects involve a high percentage of workers in construction, technicians, minerals and mining, transportation of goods, and education, the likelihood of them paying down debts first is less. Not that they have little debt, like the people in Morris's example, but because they are still living paycheck to paycheck, which is a more important issue to them than debt. I would also think that a good portion of these workers don't own homes, meaning that their landlords will be the ones to decide where the money that is generated is spent, as they would be the prime beneficiary, and the second and third being the entertainment industries (they still need their satellite tv subscriptions and movies), and the technology industries (HD is no good on a small screen).

Landlords are probably more ready to continue using the income these renters send them as investment income, growth income, and using it for leisure and acquiring other goods, which is good for fudiciary reasons. Landowners typically buy what are classified as durable goods. Machines, appliances, etc. Those are the prime goods for a manufacturing economy, because the manufacturers can demand a good price for them.

And, best of all, it keeps these workers in their apartments on their own money, and out of the workers' unemployment insurance and welfare streams. Which goes to help ensure property values stabilize. In Japan's crisis, property values continued to decline even though interest rates to buy property were 0. You can't buy property or even rent it from a landlord if there are no jobs. And if property owners can't get payment for their property, they can't create jobs so that people can rent or buy. Infrastructure takes care of both sides. It bouys property values, and stabilizes the job market, while increasing the capacity for investment well into the future.

However, we should note that any infrastructure project run by a corporation will be more economical and less costly than one run by a beaurocracy. The Internet is a good example of this. The government saw that privatizing it's control would be much better than controlling it within government. This can be said of the utilities, rail, and space industries as well. Imagine if the government would have built the transcontinental railroad without bonding it to the railroads to build and eventually own.

(Sorry, this got really long)

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Limburg, Garth <Garth.Limburg@slcgov.com> wrote:

What is your take on Morris' claim that even funding good infrastructure projects, the workers who benefit by building them will again spend most of the paycheck on existing debt thus doing little as an economic stimulus. Morris seams to favor direct tax cuts instead to businesses and individuals in order to lower overhead costs and put money into investor's pockets so they can invest in building the economy. What are your thoughts on this approach? I need to hear from my economic panel.

Also, Nevin is having difficulty getting affordable travel to NO and may put his two bowl tickets up for sale.

From: Tijs Limburg [mailto:tijis311@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:12 PM
To: Limburg, Garth
Cc: Eric Limburg
Subject: Re: FW: OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WON'T STIMULATE

I think Morris's take on this is fairly accurate. For one, I didn't agree with the stimulus we got earlier in the year, so I used it to pay off credit card debt, just as he says. While I am now practically debt free, this doesn't help the country or uncle sam very much.

Two, he's right about infrastructure projects. They take forever. look at how long it took to get Legacy Highway, 1-80 reconstruction, and UTOPIA. It took over 30 years to get practically universal cell phone coverage, and that was mostly privately funded. Cities like Saratoga Springs, Harriman and Eagle Mountain don't have cable service yet.

However, as we discussed with Nevin, there are already projects planned and ready to go that are already in the pipe. This renewed funding could be immediately applied to those projects to ensure they don't get halted when governors like Huntsman want to take a quick axe to their budgets.

Industries are created and destroyed on infrastructure. Lincoln was a genius because he saw that the only way to get all of that gold wealth generated in the 49er gold rush from the West coast to the East coast where it was needed in treasury to pay for war debts was to build a railroad so that Californians could buy products manufactured and grown in the East, and thereby tranferring their gold. This started a whole new shipping industry dominated by the age olds like Wells Fargo and Burlington.

FDR saw the same thing with the Tenessee Valley project and the building of dams. Ike saw it in building interconnecting highways that spawned the new 'cowboy' industry of trucking and distribution giants such as FedEx and UPS, as well as a mammoth auto industry and dependence on oil. And Kennedy's spending on NASA and the creation of the space infrastructure industry revolutionized the communications industry which affects are still being discovered. Google maps and GPS, anyone?

Japan tried coming out of a deep recession without spedning on infrastructure. This resulted in stagflation that took 10 years to overcome.

I recommend the book Building Wealth, by Lester C. Thurow for any that are interested. I began reading it again and I am glad to see that the Federal Reserve is following a lot of the recommendations in the book. I think we are on the right track to turning this thing around.

Tijs

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Limburg, Garth <Garth.Limburg@slcgov.com> wrote:

We have talked about this issue. Here is Dick Morris' take on it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Morris Reports [mailto:subscribers@dickmorris.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:51 PM
To: Limburg, Garth
Subject: OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WON'T STIMULATE

OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WON'T STIMULATE

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/1954/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
50aGVoaWxsLmNvbS8%3d&x=65c6beb1> on December 9, 2008

Printer-Friendly Version
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4173/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
52b3RlLmNvbS9tbXBfcHJpbnRlcmZyaWVuZGx5LnBocD9pZD0xMjQ5&x=be30cbbf>

The economic stimulus plans unveiled by President-elect Obama over the
weekend won't do much to help the economy. But they will vindicate all
the dreams of liberal Democrats for higher government spending.

Get Palin's Book, Just Pay Shipping
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4174/0/?u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3
cubmV3c21heHN0b3JlLmNvbS9ubV9tYWcvc2FyYWguY2ZtP1BST01PX0NPREU9NzJBRC0x&x
=30f1a6f6> Of course, the basic choice facing any politician
seeking to stimulate a moribund economy is whether to catalyze the
supply side with tax cuts on business or the demand side by way of
spending increases. Obama obviously made that choice years ago: He will
work the demand side.

But once a leader makes that decision, he faces another: Will he
emphasize important and valuable public works projects or will he just
try to pass out the largest amount of money possible? By announcing that
he is not "going to throw money" at the economy in the hopes of getting
a pulse, Obama signals that he will stress the former approach and fund
important public works such as school reconstruction, fiber optic
cables, alternative energy generation and the like.

The problem is that such projects take a long time to plan and longer to
build. Their immediate economic impact is highly attenuated.

In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the funds
appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that
long to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in
the last stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or
services. Five dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of
2008 went to pay down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or
home equity, and not into the acquisition of new products or services.

So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent
in the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent
by the workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4
cents from every dollar actually stimulates the economy. And who says
those 4 cents will be spent on domestically produced products? A lot of
the stimulus will just feed Chinese imports, particularly with their low
prices.

FDR faced just this problem in combating the Great Depression. In the
National Recovery Act (NRA), Roosevelt set up the Public Works
Administration (PWA) headed by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes (the
original one). Ickes was a stickler for making sure nothing was wasted
and in keeping the costs down. He managed a spectacularly successful
public works program and built, without scandal or corruption, some of
our most important national infrastructure. But he took his sweet time
doing so. The economic stimulation was slow in coming.

Exasperated, FDR did an end-run around Ickes and set up the Works
Progress Administration (WPA) under Harry Hopkins. WPA spent its money
quickly and on projects involving little overhead or preparation. My
mother got a WPA job teaching English to foreigners. Virtually all the
WPA funds were spent in the fiscal year and the stimulative effect was
immediate.

But in opting to go the Ickes route, Obama will find that he leaves a
legacy of important contributions to our national infrastructure, but
little in the way of real economic stimulation.

While a WPA-type approach might hasten the ameliorative impact of the
stimulus package, Obama still faces the conundrum that most of those who
get extra paychecks as a result of his spending will use the money to
climb out of debt. In the '30s, credit cards didn't exist and consumer
debt was very limited. Most people lived paycheck to paycheck. Extra
money equaled extra spending. But now that most consumers will use money
to pay down their debts, not to spend it, demand-side stimulation has
its limitations. But Obama's ideology won't allow him to indulge in tax
cuts "for the rich," which might work to get us out of the depression
faster.

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/2120/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3BvbG
xzLm5ld3NtYXguY29tL2hpbGxhcnkvP1BST01PX0NPREU9NjNCRi0x&x=02ed2411> Get
Palin's Book, Just Pay Shipping
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4174/0/?u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3
cubmV3c21heHN0b3JlLmNvbS9ubV9tYWcvc2FyYWguY2ZtP1BST01PX0NPREU9NzJBRC0x&x
=30f1a6f6>

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4174/0/?u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3
cubmV3c21heHN0b3JlLmNvbS9ubV9tYWcvc2FyYWguY2ZtP1BST01PX0NPREU9NzJBRC0x&x
=30f1a6f6> Your Tiny Prostate Has Huge Cancer Risk, Protect It Today
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4175/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3czLm
5ld3NtYXguY29tL2JsYXlsb2NrLzM0YS5jZm0%2fUFJPTU9fQ09ERT03MkFFLTE%3d&x=373
4c816>

Go to DickMorris.com
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/1957/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
5kaWNrbW9ycmlzLmNvbS8%3d&x=38d279d2> to read all of Dick's columns!

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/2122/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
5tYXJrc2tvdXNlbi5jb20vdmlzaXRvci5waHA%2fb2ZmZXI9MTA2Njc%3d&x=e2d150e0>

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/2123/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3BvbG
xzLm5ld3NtYXguY29tL2dvcDIwMDgvP1BST01PX0NPREU9NDMwNC0x&x=bf18cfcc>
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN
GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT
WWW.DICKMORRIS.COM
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/1957/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
5kaWNrbW9ycmlzLmNvbS8%3d&x=38d279d2> !

THANK YOU!

***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2008. REPRINTS WITH
PERMISSION ONLY***

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/db/215670/7907599/1.gif>

You are currently subscribed to dick_morris_reports as:
garth.limburg@slcgov.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
leave-215670-7907599.6b6688a91d85c06dc905240157ce1b11@reports.dickmorris
.com

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Re: FW: OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WON'T STIMULATE

I think Morris's take on this is fairly accurate. For one, I didn't agree with the stimulus we got earlier in the year, so I used it to pay off credit card debt, just as he says. While I am now practically debt free, this doesn't help the country or uncle sam very much.

Two, he's right about infrastructure projects. They take forever. look at how long it took to get Legacy Highway, 1-80 reconstruction, and UTOPIA. It took over 30 years to get practically universal cell phone coverage, and that was mostly privately funded. Cities like Saratoga Springs, Harriman and Eagle Mountain don't have cable service yet.

However, as we discussed with Nevin, there are already projects planned and ready to go that are already in the pipe. This renewed funding could be immediately applied to those projects to ensure they don't get halted when governors like Huntsman want to take a quick axe to their budgets.

Industries are created and destroyed on infrastructure. Lincoln was a genius because he saw that the only way to get all of that gold wealth generated in the 49er gold rush from the West coast to the East coast where it was needed in treasury to pay for war debts was to build a railroad so that Californians could buy products manufactured and grown in the East, and thereby tranferring their gold. This started a whole new shipping industry dominated by the age olds like Wells Fargo and Burlington.

FDR saw the same thing with the Tenessee Valley project and the building of dams. Ike saw it in building interconnecting highways that spawned the new 'cowboy' industry of trucking and distribution giants such as FedEx and UPS, as well as a mammoth auto industry and dependence on oil. And Kennedy's spending on NASA and the creation of the space infrastructure industry revolutionized the communications industry which affects are still being discovered. Google maps and GPS, anyone?

Japan tried coming out of a deep recession without spedning on infrastructure. This resulted in stagflation that took 10 years to overcome.

I recommend the book Building Wealth, by Lester C. Thurow for any that are interested. I began reading it again and I am glad to see that the Federal Reserve is following a lot of the recommendations in the book. I think we are on the right track to turning this thing around.

Tijs

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Limburg, Garth <Garth.Limburg@slcgov.com> wrote:

We have talked about this issue. Here is Dick Morris' take on it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Morris Reports [mailto:subscribers@dickmorris.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:51 PM
To: Limburg, Garth
Subject: OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WON'T STIMULATE

OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WON'T STIMULATE

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/1954/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
50aGVoaWxsLmNvbS8%3d&x=65c6beb1> on December 9, 2008

Printer-Friendly Version
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4173/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
52b3RlLmNvbS9tbXBfcHJpbnRlcmZyaWVuZGx5LnBocD9pZD0xMjQ5&x=be30cbbf>

The economic stimulus plans unveiled by President-elect Obama over the
weekend won't do much to help the economy. But they will vindicate all
the dreams of liberal Democrats for higher government spending.

Get Palin's Book, Just Pay Shipping
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4174/0/?u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3
cubmV3c21heHN0b3JlLmNvbS9ubV9tYWcvc2FyYWguY2ZtP1BST01PX0NPREU9NzJBRC0x&x
=30f1a6f6> Of course, the basic choice facing any politician
seeking to stimulate a moribund economy is whether to catalyze the
supply side with tax cuts on business or the demand side by way of
spending increases. Obama obviously made that choice years ago: He will
work the demand side.

But once a leader makes that decision, he faces another: Will he
emphasize important and valuable public works projects or will he just
try to pass out the largest amount of money possible? By announcing that
he is not "going to throw money" at the economy in the hopes of getting
a pulse, Obama signals that he will stress the former approach and fund
important public works such as school reconstruction, fiber optic
cables, alternative energy generation and the like.

The problem is that such projects take a long time to plan and longer to
build. Their immediate economic impact is highly attenuated.

In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the funds
appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that
long to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in
the last stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or
services. Five dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of
2008 went to pay down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or
home equity, and not into the acquisition of new products or services.

So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent
in the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent
by the workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4
cents from every dollar actually stimulates the economy. And who says
those 4 cents will be spent on domestically produced products? A lot of
the stimulus will just feed Chinese imports, particularly with their low
prices.

FDR faced just this problem in combating the Great Depression. In the
National Recovery Act (NRA), Roosevelt set up the Public Works
Administration (PWA) headed by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes (the
original one). Ickes was a stickler for making sure nothing was wasted
and in keeping the costs down. He managed a spectacularly successful
public works program and built, without scandal or corruption, some of
our most important national infrastructure. But he took his sweet time
doing so. The economic stimulation was slow in coming.

Exasperated, FDR did an end-run around Ickes and set up the Works
Progress Administration (WPA) under Harry Hopkins. WPA spent its money
quickly and on projects involving little overhead or preparation. My
mother got a WPA job teaching English to foreigners. Virtually all the
WPA funds were spent in the fiscal year and the stimulative effect was
immediate.

But in opting to go the Ickes route, Obama will find that he leaves a
legacy of important contributions to our national infrastructure, but
little in the way of real economic stimulation.

While a WPA-type approach might hasten the ameliorative impact of the
stimulus package, Obama still faces the conundrum that most of those who
get extra paychecks as a result of his spending will use the money to
climb out of debt. In the '30s, credit cards didn't exist and consumer
debt was very limited. Most people lived paycheck to paycheck. Extra
money equaled extra spending. But now that most consumers will use money
to pay down their debts, not to spend it, demand-side stimulation has
its limitations. But Obama's ideology won't allow him to indulge in tax
cuts "for the rich," which might work to get us out of the depression
faster.

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/2120/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3BvbG
xzLm5ld3NtYXguY29tL2hpbGxhcnkvP1BST01PX0NPREU9NjNCRi0x&x=02ed2411> Get
Palin's Book, Just Pay Shipping
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4174/0/?u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3
cubmV3c21heHN0b3JlLmNvbS9ubV9tYWcvc2FyYWguY2ZtP1BST01PX0NPREU9NzJBRC0x&x
=30f1a6f6>

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4174/0/?u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3
cubmV3c21heHN0b3JlLmNvbS9ubV9tYWcvc2FyYWguY2ZtP1BST01PX0NPREU9NzJBRC0x&x
=30f1a6f6> Your Tiny Prostate Has Huge Cancer Risk, Protect It Today
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/4175/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3czLm
5ld3NtYXguY29tL2JsYXlsb2NrLzM0YS5jZm0%2fUFJPTU9fQ09ERT03MkFFLTE%3d&x=373
4c816>

Go to DickMorris.com
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/1957/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
5kaWNrbW9ycmlzLmNvbS8%3d&x=38d279d2> to read all of Dick's columns!

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/2122/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
5tYXJrc2tvdXNlbi5jb20vdmlzaXRvci5waHA%2fb2ZmZXI9MTA2Njc%3d&x=e2d150e0>

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/2123/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3BvbG
xzLm5ld3NtYXguY29tL2dvcDIwMDgvP1BST01PX0NPREU9NDMwNC0x&x=bf18cfcc>
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN
GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT
WWW.DICKMORRIS.COM
<http://reports.dickmorris.com/t/215670/7907599/1957/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy
5kaWNrbW9ycmlzLmNvbS8%3d&x=38d279d2> !

THANK YOU!

***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2008. REPRINTS WITH
PERMISSION ONLY***

<http://reports.dickmorris.com/db/215670/7907599/1.gif>

You are currently subscribed to dick_morris_reports as:
garth.limburg@slcgov.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
leave-215670-7907599.6b6688a91d85c06dc905240157ce1b11@reports.dickmorris
.com

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Reply: The Election, my final reflections

The thing that makes me more calm are the statistics for voter turnout. This time America really did come out and speak their voice, with over 110 million votes and over 66% voter turnout. I believe in the democratic-republic system so geniusly prescribed by Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington, and the other founding fathers, and if that system elected Barack Obama in the end, then I believe as all of you do that we can only rally behind our new president in patriotism, supporting him where we agree and opposing him where we differ in ideals.

Something else I realized last night. I really can't complain about my life so far, most everything has been good. There are a few notable catastrophic events that took place such as the Gulf War, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and Columbine, but overall the economies have always been good, there has never been a draft, and the information revolution occurred while I was still young, so I have been able to be a participant in practically the whole of it.

Interestingly, I was born during the Regan administration which totaled the first 5 years of my life. Then we had Bush senior, making 9 years of my life under a Republican president. Then we had Clinton for 8 years, and then Bush for another 8 years, totaling 17 of my 25 years under a Republican. With this in mind I am interested to see what 4 added years to the democrat side of the equation will bring. I will be 29 when the next election for president is held. What am I going to accomplish for myself, my family, and my country in those 4 years?

It will be interesting to see if other Americans are asking the same questions about themselves ("ask what you can do for your country") or if they will be asking what their new president and government will do for them ("ask what your country can do for you"). While I am excited to see that Americans on both sides became more involved this time, they have yet to prove that they will stand up and take action for themselves to improve their lives and their situation. I guess time will tell.

Tijs

--
Tijs Limburg

The Election, my final reflections

A letter I received in regards to the election last night.

Dear Friends,

You know that I was quite passionate about the presidential elections. Today, the day after, I am quite mellow about it, and at peace. I listened well to both speeches last night following John McCain's concession to Barack Obama. I want to follow what McCain said that we should all do as Americans, and that is work together to solve our problems. I believe McCain delivered the most dignified, classy, generous, respectful, and positive concession speech that I have ever heard from a candidate. I also believe that President-Elect Obama's speech was truly inspirational and that he positively reached out to all Americans, and I want him to succeed in what he said. He absolutely must come more to the center of the political arena to accomplish what he promised, and I will remain a conservative with the values that I have to help in my small way to be a voice to bring about a greater America. I invite all of you to join me in that, or to just do what your own desires dictate to contribute to the cause of a more righteous behavior in our government and across this great land of the free.

Your friend,

Nevin

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Politics and Halloween

Monday, November 03, 2008

Fox Poll: McCain Tied in Key States

Again, Dick Morris predicts if Obama is at 49% or below and undecided
voters break for McCain, McCain wins.

Check this out. Hope Fox News is right!

Breaking from Newsmax.com

Fox Poll: McCain Tied in Key States

A just-released Fox News poll of 1,000 voters in each of six key states shows Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain making major last minutes strides to pull even with his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

While Obama leads in two of the battlegrounds states, the candidates are now tied, or within 1 point of each other, in four others, according to the Rasmussen Reports survey.

In Ohio, one of the states that McCain's supporters believe they have to win, McCain has pulled dead even. Obama and McCain are now tied in Ohio, at 49 percent apiece.

Here are the results from the Fox News poll:

Colorado

Obama 51

McCain 47

Florida

McCain 50

Obama 49

Missouri

Obama 49

McCain 49

N. Carolina

McCain 50

Obama 49

Ohio

Obama 49

McCain 49

Virginia

Obama 51

McCain 47

The poll has a plus or minus margin of error of 3 percent.

Sponsored Note: The GOPtrust.com can still buy TV ads in key swing states — help them now and donate...Go Here Now

This e-mail is never sent unsolicited. You have received this Newsmax e-mail because you subscribed to it or someone forwarded it to you. To opt out, see the links below

TO ADVERTISE

For information on advertising at Newsmax.com, please contact Newsmax Advertising Sales via e-mail.

TO SUBSCRIBE

If this News Alert has been forwarded to you and would like a subscription, please sign up for Newsmax e-mail alerts.

Remove your e-mail address from our list or modify your profile. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy.

This e-mail was sent by:
Newsmax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114
Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA

453157
9898-1

Thursday, October 30, 2008

There's hope!

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Nevin Limburg
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:Nevin.Limburg@wvc-ut.gov
N:Limburg;Nevin
END:VCARD

While out this afternoon, and while listening to Hannity, Dick Morris came on and told everyone:

1) It's a 3% race nationwide
2) Don't pay attention to the state polls because they are old
3) undecided independents are swinging McCain, because they have not yet gotten comfortable with Obama
4) reptrust.com has raised $4M for their Reverand Jeremiah Wright/Obama Ad, and hope to have $6M by end of today, to run these ads nationwide over the weekend
5) Said that watch for Monday, and if Obama is at 48% nationwide (giving Nader et al about 1%) he loses, no matter what it shows McCain is at then. Reason: last minute deciders on the eve of the election, like a marriage having had troubles, will decide to stay with the marriage the next day because they can't trust what the future will bring (and they obviously have not decided at that point to go with the obvious change agent, Obama)
6) Is not predicting a McCain victory at this point, 5 days out, but says there is hope in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and others, but he admits that Obama did himself some good last night with the est. 40 M viewers
7) Said McCain's adds are working, he has matched Obama in key states, and is causing people to question the change if Obama is as radical as he is being made out to be.
8) Says there is hope

Nevin, with my political take for the day, group pundits!

"We should be too big to take offense, and too noble to give it"
Abraham Lincoln.

Nevin Limburg, CEcD
Business Development Manager
Economic Development / Redevelopment Agency
West Valley City, Utah
Office: 801-963-3322
cell: 801-232-0264
Nevin.Limburg@wvc-ut.gov

Experiment: Obama's IRS (Income Redistribution Service)

All,

I read this note today that was posted by one of my friends. The 'experiment' is a good example of what will happen when people realize what they voted for if Obama becomes president:

     Yesterday on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

     Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference – just imagine the coincidence.

     When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I
     deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

      I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

      At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual
      recipient deserved money more.

      I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

      -Anonymous

While Republicans like Ron Paul wanted to do away with the IRS, Democrats like Obama just wants to change the meaning of the name, to Income Redistribution Service.

Pass it on.

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

What to do in Volatile Markets?

All,

Here is a strategy that at first seems to go against the logic and day-to-day trading of the markets. Normally, when you want to make a good gain quickly on a stock, you buy lower and sell higher, especially once your gain is over 10%. Do this multiple times, and you start to compound your 10% gains. You don't worry about whether the stock pays a dividend, because you're not going to hold it for the 3 months till payout anyway.

However, trying to do this in today's market of 700+ point swings within one day, and today's times of up 600 today, down 900 tomorrow, is next to impossible. So, what should be done? I think this volatile swinging makes dividend shares very appealing, and here's why:

- When dividend shares are cheap, you get more dividend per dollar invested, as long as the company doesn't lower their dividend also.
- As prices swing wildly, you have more opportunities to buy up more and more stock in these companies paying dividends, especially when the stock swings negative
- When a company pays a dividend, it usually means they are a good company that can afford to do so, meaning they should ride out storms better than others, like a carrier as compared to a patrol boat.
- When the market finally gets a grip, you will make money from both sides, capital appreciation and locking in a high yield to dollar ratio, as well as having been able to acquire more and more stock as prices swung wildly.
- And if the stock market takes 3-5 years to recover losses, at least you can ride through it all making money on dividends. The 70's saw a long period of time where the DOW didn't gain at all. Those who held dividend shares though made enough money to at least be satisfied and ready for the nearly 20 year bull run that occurred afterward.

A good example of this is the Huaneng Power company in China, or HNP. The stock is down nearly 50% from it's high, and was down as much as 25% this week alone. Yet it now yields nearly 9%. This morning it was down 6%, so I bought down on the stock. For every share I purchased at 16.80, I will get a dividend of $.43 each quarter, or $1.75 each year for as long as they pay a dividend. If next year the stock is trading at $30 a share, I still lock in the dividend yield, plus the appreciation with it. As well, to demonstrate how crazy things are on the trading floor, when I bought HNP, the stock was down 6% on the day. It closed up 5%. So those shares purchased will not only yield a dividend, but they appreciated 11% in one day. Not that I expect that appreciation to hold of course. But when it goes down again to 16.80 or lower, I'll buy more knowing that there is a dividend there to smooth out the bumpy ride.

Of course, this is why options are very attractive too, but that is another story.

So it may not be a bad idea to move some of your investments to dividend shares. There are plenty of them out there that are cheap but are good companies.

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

A Commentary on the Election that I agree with

Not Moderates but GOP Wimps

A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 Email to a FriendAdvertisement
I've long considered myself a bad Republican. During the Bush administration, for example, I've felt free to whack George W. and Republicans in Congress for passing big-spending bills, such as their pork-rich 2002 farm bill, the underfunded prescription-drug bill and earmark spending. But in 2008, I find that I'm a piker in the bad Republican department.

Enter Christopher Buckley, the satirical novelist and GOP legacy prince who wrote a piece in the New York Times in February excoriating Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives for not supporting John McCain for president, despite McCain's conservative credentials and unassailable character. This month, Buckley announced he would vote for Democrat Barack Obama for president, as McCain's campaign had rendered the former P.O.W. "inauthentic."

Republicans Colin Powell, William Weld and Scott McClellan also have endorsed Obama. On Friday, Limbaugh lashed out at Buckley and company, as he asked, "What the hell happened to your theory that only John McCain could enlarge this party, that we had to get moderates and independents?"

"Good riddance," Limbaugh said, to GOP moderates. In an e-mail Monday, Limbaugh wrote, "What I meant to imply is that moderates leading a conservative revival will doom it. I'm happy to have them -- but not as definers and leaders."

Limbaugh should ease off on the "moderate" bashing. Buckley, Powell, Weld and McClellan don't represent moderate Republicans so much as they represent themselves -- and a small universe of New York and Beltway conservatives who have not retreated to the middle, but simply bolted for the nearest exit.

They had spent the last eight years in a contentious marriage marred by a circular argument revolving around George W. Bush. McCain appeared as the man who might offer a chance for happiness. But when they found themselves trapped in the same ceaseless argument that plagued their last unhappy marriage, they announced they were leaving home to buy a pack of cigarettes.

William Ayers? Everyone knows that if McCain had held a campaign event at the home of someone who founded a violent anti-abortion group, it would be an issue. McCampaign seemed out of touch in bringing up in the midst of an economic crisis Ayers, an education professor who helped found the terrorist Weather Underground in the 1960s. When GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hit Obama's "socialist" tax policies, here again, the campaign seemed not so much too conservative, as too 1950s.

They were still arguing about style, as McCampaign had morphed into a style-crime road show. The factor here is not moderate versus conservative Republicans, but the cool guy versus the old guy.

Buckley did not claim that Obama's policies are better. Indeed, he wrote that he will "pray, secularly" for Obama to betray the traditional left-wing politics he espouses. Powell told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he supported Obama "because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America" -- not because of Obama's position papers.

When Obamacons explain why they are deserting the GOP nominee, you don't hear them arguing that Obama will do better by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't say that Obama has the best ideas for the economy. They instead lean on the belief that Obama can bring people together.

They gloss over the fact that McCain will settle for nothing short of a successful military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or that Obama sees Iraq as a place where the U.S. government spends $10 billion a month that could go to social programs at home. They count on Obama to do what is expedient, not what he has pledged to do.

They tend to agree more with McCain's emphasis on limiting taxation to encourage job creation than Obama's zeal to spread around affluent people's wealth. So they don't dwell on the policy questions.

They don't care that McCain has a history of working with Democrats, while Obama has a history of talking about working with Republicans. Because they have lined up behind the Democrat, they have determined that Obama will bring people together.

This isn't about ideology -- moderate or conservative. It's a personality contest.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

See Other Political Commentary

"We should be too big to take offense, and too noble to give it"
Abraham Lincoln.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Opinions?

Anyone have any thoughts on Ret. General Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama on Meet the Press yesterday? Is it just me or did the Republican party really alienate a lot of voters this time around? I guarantee if a true change candidate would have been nominated, like Romney, Powell would have endorsed him. It is sad that the party got so narrow in its focus that even major party members like Powell are not happy with the party direction.

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

A Good Article - Cox: Take Note

Here is a good article from the Ayn Rand Institute. Cox should take note:

In Defense of Speculators and Short-Sellers

By Amit Ghate

Everywhere today government bureaucrats and media pundits blame unwanted price movements on speculators and short-sellers. If prices are "too high"--it's the fault of greedy speculators; if prices are "too low"--it's the work of evil short-sellers. To hear these critics tell it, speculators have the ability to create artificially high prices, while short-sellers can wantonly destroy sound companies. (Ignore for now the obvious question: "Where are the short-sellers in markets that are 'too high' and the speculators in markets that are 'too low'?")

The critics then claim that since neither speculators nor short-sellers perform any positive economic function, barring them from the marketplace is an appropriate remedy, one that's long past due. (Recently the United States did just this by making some shorting illegal.)

So to begin, let's ask what the critics consider a "correct" price? Clearly it's not the price which obtains when all market participants are free to engage in trade based on their best judgment, because this is precisely the free-market price--a price which they so vociferously condemn. But if "too low" and "too high" aren't judged relative to the free market, what is the standard? Stripped of euphemism: their wishes.

For example, they wish--contrary to all relevant facts--that oil be priced at $20/barrel and that Lehman's stock trade at $80/share. Never mind that environmental policy has prevented the drilling of oil and the development of nuclear power for decades now, or that Chinese and Indian oil consumption is growing relentlessly; forget too that Lehman chose to leverage itself at 35:1 and made riskier trades year after year--if these critics wish for a price, then that should be the price, facts be damned!

But of course, attempting to set prices by wishing doesn't--and can't--work, not for Lenin, Stalin or Brezhnev; or for Paulson, Bernanke and Bush. If prices are to reflect reality, they must be the result of an objective process of discovery and judgment performed by interested actors.

So just as doctors specialize in identifying and evaluating the facts affecting health and disease, speculators and short-sellers specialize in identifying and evaluating the facts pertinent to market prices. They make it their business to understand economic facts like supply and demand, and then risk their capital on their judgment, properly profiting if they're right and losing if they're wrong. Thus in a free market, rather than prices being set by wish or decree, they are set by a rational process, one which benefits from the knowledge of all who participate.

For instance, if speculators believe that future oil supplies won't match demand, they buy oil, increasing its price. If they're right, and oil prices continue to increase, they sell their positions, profiting from their insight but also capping prices as their supply comes to market; furthermore, their initial effect on prices signals to the market that greater oil supplies are needed and reduced oil consumption is appropriate--efficiently allowing market participants to adjust their actions to the facts.

So too for short-sellers. If they judge that Enron is cooking the books, or that Lehman is insolvent, they can seek to profit from their insight by short-sales. These lower stock prices in the present and convey to the market that there are potential problems with the companies, helping others avoid losses in the stocks. And if shorts are proved correct, rather than exacerbating any price slide, they actually mitigate price declines when they buy their positions back. (Of course, short-sellers, like speculators, only profit if their judgment is correct. If they short a productive, undervalued firm, say, e.g., Wal-Mart or Apple, they lose when the actual facts belie their predictions.)

Consider the recent failure of Lehman, where critics claim that short-sellers caused the decline by obscuring and distorting the company's true value. The facts say otherwise. When the government shopped Lehman to potential buyers, opening the books to them, not a single buyer emerged, not at any price! Everyone who examined the company concluded it was worthless. This was the fact that short-sellers grasped earlier than others--it wasn't a fact they created.

Speculators and short-sellers don't create facts, they seek to identify and respond to them; and in the process they help adjust prices to economic conditions and establish smooth and liquid markets. As a result--instead of being scapegoated and banished--they should be respected and welcomed for the productive role they play in our markets.

Amit Ghate is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, a division of the Ayn Rand Institute. He is a full-time trader who often speculates and shorts.

Monday, October 13, 2008

WILLIAM KRISTOL: Fire the Campaign

October 13, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Fire the Campaign

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

It's time for John McCain to fire his campaign.

He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama's. The Obama team is well organized, flush with resources, and the candidate and the campaign are in sync. The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed.

He may be anyway. Bush is unpopular. The media is hostile. The financial meltdown has made things tougher. Maybe the situation is hopeless — and if it is, then nothing McCain or his campaign does matters.

But I'm not convinced by such claims of inevitability. McCain isn't Bush. The media isn't all-powerful. And the economic crisis still presents an opportunity to show leadership.

The 2008 campaign is now about something very big — both our future prosperity and our national security. Yet the McCain campaign has become smaller.

What McCain needs to do is junk the whole thing and start over. Shut down the rapid responses, end the frantic e-mails, bench the spinning surrogates, stop putting up new TV and Internet ads every minute. In fact, pull all the ads — they're doing no good anyway. Use that money for televised town halls and half-hour addresses in prime time.

And let McCain go back to what he's been good at in the past — running as a cheerful, open and accessible candidate. Palin should follow suit. The two of them are attractive and competent politicians. They're happy warriors and good campaigners. Set them free.

Provide total media accessibility on their campaign planes and buses. Kick most of the aides off and send them out to swing states to work for the state coordinators on getting voters to the polls. Keep just a minimal staff to help organize the press conferences McCain and Palin should have at every stop and the TV interviews they should do at every location. Do town halls, do the Sunday TV shows, do talk radio — and invite Obama and Biden to join them in some of these venues, on the ground that more joint appearances might restore civility and substance to the contest.

The hope for McCain and Palin is that they still have pretty good favorable ratings from the voters. The American people have by no means turned decisively against them.

The bad news, of course, is that right now Obama's approval/disapproval rating is better than McCain's. Indeed, Obama's is a bit higher than it was a month ago. That suggests the failure of the McCain campaign's attacks on Obama.

So drop them.

Not because they're illegitimate. I think many of them are reasonable. Obama's relationship to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is, I believe, a legitimate issue. But McCain ruled it out of bounds, and he's sticking to that. And for whatever reason — the public mood, campaign ineptness, McCain's alternation between hesitancy and harshness, which reflects the fact that he's uncomfortable in the attack role — the other attacks on Obama just aren't working. There's no reason to think they're suddenly going to.

There are still enough doubts about Obama to allow McCain to win. But McCain needs to make his case, and do so as a serious but cheerful candidate for times that need a serious but upbeat leader.

McCain should stop unveiling gimmicky proposals every couple of days that pretend to deal with the financial crisis. He should tell the truth — we're in uncharted waters, no one is certain what to do, and no one knows what the situation will be on Jan. 20, 2009. But what we do know is that we could use someone as president who's shown in his career the kind of sound judgment and strong leadership we'll need to make it through the crisis.

McCain can make the substantive case for his broadly centrist conservatism. He can explain that our enemies won't take a vacation because the markets are down, and that it's not unimportant that he's ready to be commander in chief. He can remind voters that even in a recession, the president appoints federal judges — and that his judges won't legislate from the bench.

And he can point out that there's going to be a Democratic Congress. He can suggest that surely we'd prefer a president who would check that Congress where necessary and work with it where possible, instead of having an inexperienced Democratic president joined at the hip with an all-too-experienced Democratic Congress, leading us, unfettered and unchecked, back to 1970s-style liberalism.

At Wednesday night's debate at Hofstra, McCain might want to volunteer a mild mea culpa about the extent to which the presidential race has degenerated into a shouting match. And then he can pledge to the voters that the last three weeks will feature a contest worthy of this moment in our history.

He'd enjoy it. And he might even win it.

Home

· World

· U.S.

· N.Y. / Region

· Business

· Technology

· Science

· Health

· Sports

· Opinion

· Arts