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

--
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.

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

· Style

· Travel

· Jobs

· Real Estate

· Automobiles

· Back to Top

· Privacy Policy

· Search

· Corrections

· RSS

· First Look

· Help

· Contact Us

· Work for Us

· Site Map

An American Carol

All,

I thought the new comedy "An American Carol" was really funny, and I recommend it to all of you conservatives out there. I enjoyed Kevin Farley's skill as a comedian (he's the younger brother to one of my all time favorite comedians Chris Farley), and I enjoyed seeing other conservative actors such as Jon Voit as the ghost of George Washington.

If you liked slapstic comedy like "Airplane!" you'll love this one because David Zucker created both films. The overall comedy of the film reminded me of cult favorites like "Dr. Strangelove", "The Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail", "UHF", and "Office Space".

Plus, Bill O'Rielly is great and his role in the film is funny too.

Its fun to finally be able to laugh at something that is attacking libs instead of the other way around. The sad part is that I'm sure the new "comedy" "W.: A Life Misunderestimated" will draw larger crowds. So get out there and support a conservative comedy if not for anything else.

--
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.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Alan Greenspan Q&A

A recent chat with a good friend:

Ronald: good info. sounds about right. any trueth to the rumor that greenspan contributed to the house boom, and therefore, the current woes? I heard he implemented flexiable and non-traditional loans for the houseing market (or rather oked them) to stimulate the economy. any trueth there?

me: yo. Yes, greenspan approved a new wave of subprime loans during his service under Bill Clinton

2:27 PM That approval lead to the overleveraged companies that have failed today

2:28 PM Ronald: isn't he hailed as one of the greatest money minds? was it just an oops, or did people take advantage?

and thanks for the knowlege, I hear things, but don't believe them without independant confirm

2:30 PM me: Yep, greenspan is a genius

The problem is not necessarily the subprime loans. In fact, on paper the idea is brilliant.

2:31 PM Ronald: virtually creating money, making ownership available to literally anyone

me: Because mortgages are the prime valuation of our economy, they can be thought of as stocks in the economy

2:32 PM because stock is the valuation of a company, for the most part

The more stock that is issued at a certain price, the more the company is worth if they can continue selling more stock at that price

This is called market-captalization

2:33 PM Ronald: k

me: So, if more mortgages are sold, it is the same idea as increasing the amount of stock.

By doing so the economy becomes worth much more

2:34 PM To add to this, mortgages are sold both ways, the primary being to the consumer who buys into a mortgage to pay for their house

the secondary being through asset backed derivatives which investors buy into

2:35 PM those derivatives value are based on a "package" of mortgage assets

2:36 PM derivatives are the primary way in which the US gets back all of that money we send overseas for imports such as oil and other stuff we buy at Wal Mart from China

Those countries buy up these derivatives because they expect them to be a sound investment

So, what happened in a nutshell is this:

2:37 PM Greenspan along with the Clinton Administration dramatically increased the ability of banks, and more especially Fannie and Freddy to delve into subprime loans

2:38 PM That action, along with incredibly low interest rates sparked a huge boom in the economy that we have been riding and enjoying for the last 10 years

So, in short the idea worked

2:39 PM Ronald: but...

me: However, increasing pressure from dramatically increased energy and food prices and flat wage increases cut into the ability of many Americans to pay their mortgages

2:40 PM So those loans went into default, causing a double whammy

The banks weren't getting their projected income from those who owned mortgages

2:41 PM and they couldn't sell derivatives because the credit ratings on those derivatives decreased as more defaults piled up

This left the banks with huge losses, causing a credit crunch

2:42 PM to make matters worse, the banks now had asset backed derivatives that they couldn't price because home values sharply declined; there was no way for them to know how much their assets were worth

2:43 PM this made their balance sheets look horrible, which caused investors to leave in droves, bankrupting those firms, causing a huge ripple on Wall Street and furthering fueling the credit crisis

Ronald: is there any legislation on sub primes, or with the industry self regulate?

me: Whew!

Ronald: ps thanks for the info

2:44 PM me: There are, but they are a lot more laxed now

Ronald: I knew it had to be the big oils fault
! ;-)

me: Yep

Confronting Barney and the Stock Market Crash of 2008

Well, some of you may remember an email I sent back in the beginning of July regarding the huge selloff that occurred in the financial stocks then. My predictions have come true. I can only hope tomorrow being Friday or a few days later don't go down in the history books as a Black Friday or Black Monday. It is October afterall.

Here's what I said in July if you didn't get the email. Scary, isn't it to see in hindsight how dead on these ideas have proven to be. Some have asked me to be a financial advisor, if not full time at least part time. Maybe I should.

July 11th Email:

Well, some have been predicting a crash in the markets for some time, and while it is not a broad based crash (yet), the plunge in the Financial sector that has occurred this week, more especially today, makes this a Black Friday in my opinion.

Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the to goliath mortgage finance companies that are backed by the government, crashed 39% and 45% respectively today, bringing the financial markets to their knees and bringing the Dow to its lowest intraday point so far in 2 years - below 11,000 points.

And it's only July.

In some ways I'm nervous to see what happens in September and October, which are known to be stormy to downright terrible months for the markets even in stellar years. The economy is shaping up to be a "perfect storm" that I don't think either Presidential Candidate has any qualifications to resolve. We could be in for quite a ride, and unfortunately, a lot of losses.

Here are some articles that should be a wakeup call. Now is a good time to save money (in cash accounts - not securities), and to move your current stock investments into dividend yielding stocks and bonds.

I'm not sure what this means for the housing market as a whole, or what it means for people who want to get into a home, but I wouldn't get into a mortgage right now without qualifying for FHA, which was made during the depression years to get people into homes, so an FHA insured loan should be able to ride out any stormyness.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Nevin Limburg <Nevin.Limburg@wvc-ut.gov> wrote:

I really like Bill because he doesn't hold back and he speaks and writes the minds and thoughts of average Americans like me. I AM ANGRY. Today, again, the stock market fell another 600 points and is now below 9,000 on the Dow. I can only hope that within the next five years my 401K and 457 can recover and rebound. B Frank is a very liberal jerk from the very beginning of his time in Congress. He should be replaced immediately, reprimanded, and thrown out with this election. Yet you know it won't happen. Thank goodness there are still the Bill O'Reilly's of the world who can speak the truth and help get it out. So who's listening?

I'M MAD AND LET'S THROW THE BUMS OUT!

Nevin

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

>>> "Limburg, Garth" <Garth.Limburg@slcgov.com> 10/9/2008 2:15 PM >>>

Confronting Barney

By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Oct 09, 2008

One of the things lacking in the second presidential debate this week
was anger. With the economy brutalizing millions of Americans, I
expected both candidates to be furious that, once again, the government
failed to warn us about impending disaster. Before the 9/11 attack few
Americans had ever heard of al Qaeda even though Presidents Clinton and
Bush certainly knew of the growing danger the group posed. Now, there's
compelling evidence that the feds stonewalled the present economic
chaos. So why aren't McCain and Obama livid about it?

It is not hard to understand why Americans who work hard, obey the law
and believe in the capitalistic system, are sick to their stomachs when
they lose investment money through no fault of their own. Corrupt Wall
Street greed heads and stupid, lazy federal overseers have combined to
deliver one of the most punishing blows to regular folks in U.S.
history.

So, again, why aren't Obama and McCain pounding the table?

Recently, I interviewed the Chairman of the House Finance Committee
Barney Frank and it was quite a shootout. According to The Wall Street
Journal, Investors Business Daily and my own research, Frank presided
over the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a casual disdain
for the American investor.

In fact, last July, Frank went on television and said this:

"Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, they are not in danger of
going under. They're not the best investments these days from the
long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going
forward."

Sure. Less than three months later Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed
and even though he was in charge, Frank says he is not at fault. Of
course, he blames Republicans.

After hearing that, I let Frank have it calling him a coward for not
admitting any culpability. He then called me stupid. You get the
picture.

Now, I remain furious with Barney Frank. To me, he epitomizes everything
that is wrong with the federal government. He was incompetent in his
oversight of the federal mortgage agencies and then when they folded,
causing a chain reaction financial disaster for honest investors, he
blamed other people.

Unacceptable and every elected official in Washington should feel the
same way. This is not some political theory here, real people are
getting badly hurt, lives are being dramatically affected. Those
responsible need to be held to account.

But in the land of conventional politics anyone showing anger and
passion is deemed to be "out of control." You must appear calm and cool
in the face of any storm. Therefore, Obama and McCain showed little
emotion about the terrible economic situation.

You know sometimes cool doesn't cut it, fellas. There is a time for
anger.

And that time is now.

##

Confronting Barney

Confronting Barney
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Oct 09, 2008

One of the things lacking in the second presidential debate this week was anger. With the economy brutalizing millions of Americans, I expected both candidates to be furious that, once again, the government failed to warn us about impending disaster. Before the 9/11 attack few Americans had ever heard of al Qaeda even though Presidents Clinton and Bush certainly knew of the growing danger the group posed. Now, there's compelling evidence that the feds stonewalled the present economic chaos. So why aren't McCain and Obama livid about it? It is not hard to understand why Americans who work hard, obey the law and believe in the capitalistic system, are sick to their stomachs when they lose investment money through no fault of their own. Corrupt Wall Street greed heads and stupid, lazy federal overseers have combined to deliver one of the most punishing blows to regular folks in U.S. history. So, again, why aren't Obama and McCain pounding the table? Recently, I interviewed the Chairman of the House Finance Committee Barney Frank and it was quite a shootout. According to The Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and my own research, Frank presided over the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a casual disdain for the American investor. In fact, last July, Frank went on television and said this: "Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward." Sure. Less than three months later Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed and even though he was in charge, Frank says he is not at fault. Of course, he blames Republicans. After hearing that, I let Frank have it calling him a coward for not admitting any culpability. He then called me stupid. You get the picture. Now, I remain furious with Barney Frank. To me, he epitomizes everything that is wrong with the federal government. He was incompetent in his oversight of the federal mortgage agencies and then when they folded, causing a chain reaction financial disaster for honest investors, he blamed other people. Unacceptable and every elected official in Washington should feel the same way. This is not some political theory here, real people are getting badly hurt, lives are being dramatically affected. Those responsible need to be held to account. But in the land of conventional politics anyone showing anger and passion is deemed to be "out of control." You must appear calm and cool in the face of any storm. Therefore, Obama and McCain showed little emotion about the terrible economic situation. You know sometimes cool doesn't cut it, fellas. There is a time for anger. And that time is now.
##

Obama's Real Problem With Ayers

And the nation stands in wait to elect this guy?

Obama's Real Problem With Ayers

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 10/7/2008

Election '08: At an education forum in Venezuela, Bill Ayers showed the real issue is not his terrorist past. It's the socialist revolutionary agenda that he and Barack Obama want to impose on the nation's schools.

Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?

logo

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)

Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?

By P.J. Gladnick

Created 2008-10-08 16:15

The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times [1], MSNBC [2], and the New York Times [3], among others. So now that Barack Obama's membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization?

Proof of Obama's membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog [4]:

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform [5] as unconstitutional.

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization [6] had archived the page.

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

You can find the above quote from the scubbed New Party web page at this Internet Archive Organization link [7]. More confirmation of Obama's membership in the New Party can be found at an article [8] in the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

The Democratic Socialist Party of America also reported on Obama's New Party membership in its July/August 1996 edition [9]:

The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

Kudos to Politically Drunk On Power for digging up this information about Obama's membership in the socialist New Party. The question now is if the MSM will deem his party membership important enough to report on. They sure didn't hesitate to report on Todd Palin's membership in the Alaska Independence Party.

UPDATE: Yet more proof of Obama's close involvement in the socialist New Party from NewsBusters' Hermano who provided this link [10] to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of American September-October 1995 New Ground 42 edition:

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.

So Obama signed a contract with the New Party? Verrrry interesting.

Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party

Links:
[1] http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks4-2008sep04,0,5675222.column
[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/politics/04party.html?ref=politics
[4] http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html
[5] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913
[6] http://archive.org/
[7] http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html
[8] http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html
[9] http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html
[10] http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932