It’s getting feisty out on the campaign trail!  Over the weekend, part of Senator Barack Obama’s past came back to haunt him. 

Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin, did the honors by relying on a New York Times articles.  She criticized Obama for his association with William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground radical group.

Ayers is a self-described revolutionary communist, and the Weather Underground was a home-grown American terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and the violent overthrow of the United States government.  The group bombed New York City police headquarters, the Capitol, and the Pentagon in the 1970s.

To this day, Ayers is unrepentant: “I don’t regret setting bombs,” he said in a New York Times interview in 2001.

How close is this association between Obama and Ayers?  Ayers held a fundraiser at his home in 1995 to help Obama launch his political career.  Ayers is the co-founder of the 1995-2000 Chicago School Reform Collaborative project (the “Annenberg Challenge”).  Obama was the first chairman of the board of the Annenberg Challenge.  The two also appeared together on academic panels.  For instance, Obama and Ayers shared the same stage at a discussion series on juvenile justice in 1997.  In one of those series, Obama said Ayers’s book on the topic was “a searing and timely account.”  They also both live in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood.    

With this information in hand, Palin referred to Ayers as a “domestic terrorist,” and she stated that Obama “is not a man who sees America as you see it.” 

What, if anything, should we make of this?  Did Obama and Ayers exchange political views?  Was Ayers a communist influence on Obama?  Should that be relevant now, in 2008?  Or do you think the association is nothing but an acquaintance and shouldn’t be considered part of the campaign? 

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

Last night’s much-anticipated VP debate has produced a wide range of opinions.  Some polls show that viewers thought Biden won, and other polls show that viewers thought Palin won.

Who do you think won last night’s debate, and why?

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

After yesterday’s vote and subsequent defeat of the government bailout plan, lawmakers are scrambling to revise it.

One of the proposals being considered is raising the federal deposit insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000.  This would help prevent runs on banks and restore confidence that Americans won’t lose their savings.

Another proposal in the works is modifying the ”mark to market” accounting rules, which require banks and other financial institutions to adjust the value of their assets to reflect current market prices, even if they plan to hold the assets for years.  House Republicans argue that current rules forced banks to report huge paper losses on mortgage-backed securities, which might have been avoided if they could have pegged the values of those securities to their future market value (which was standard practice before Sarbanes-Oxley).

Democrats are suggesting other changes to the government bailout plan, including extending unemployment insurance and banning some forms of short selling.

Other ideas that have been floated include the creation of an insurance program whereby Wall Street institutions would purchase insurance and the reduction of corporate and capital gains tax rates.

Given these various proposals, what do you think should be included in the revised government bailout plan?  Do you have any other suggestions beyond what’s listed above?

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

A news report today reveals that Senator Barack Obama and his campaign team believe he can win the election in November by a landslide.

According to the article, Obama’s optimism is based on several factors:

• Information from private polling;
• Faith in his powerful political organization in key swing states; and
• Strength among first-time voters;

Do YOU think Obama can beat McCain in a landslide?

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

We all know Senator John McCain’s now famous line that the “fundamentals of the U.S. economy are strong”:

The mainstream media and Senator Barack Obama have ridiculed McCain for this statement, especially in light of the current financial crisis and the U.S. government’s potential $700 billion bailout.

Since then, McCain has clarified his statement by saying that the “fundamentals” he was referring to were, in fact, American workers.  With that added clarity, McCain’s argument takes on a different meaning. 

Indeed, he isn’t the only one who has noted that the “fundamentals” of our economy are strong.  Certain opinion columnists have made the same argument, highlighting the following notable strengths:

The United States was the world’s most competitive economy the last two years. 

Per-capita gross domestic product in the U.S. consistently has grown faster than in other developed economies since 1980.

We have the world’s largest domestic market size. 

We have the most venture capital available. 

We are #1 in the cost of firing an employee and university/industry research collaboration and #2 in ownership of personal computers and in quality of scientific research institutions.

Our fertility rate in the U.S. is the highest among major industrialized economies, which means that, as major competing nations deal with their populations growing older and the resulting decline in productivity and increase in pension costs, our population will remain young and vibrant.

None of this stuff will change in any significant way in the next few months as we navigate through this latest crisis. 

So, given those statistics, do you think McCain is right to suggest that, despite the recent economic downturn and possible recession, the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are strong?

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

It seems that no day is complete without a gaffe, joke, or misquote from Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for VP.  The past month, we have seen quite a few of them.

Two weeks ago, he stated that Hillary Clinton might have been a better choice for VP.  Last week, he claimed that paying taxes was “patriotic.”  This week, he was asked about a TV ad run by the Obama campaign that attacked Senator John McCain’s ignorance of computers and technology.  Biden called the ad “terrible.”

Biden has also flip-flopped on the AIG bailout: first, he opposed it; then he was for it. 

And, of course, who can forget the incident last week, when Biden asked Chuck Graham (who is in a wheelchair) to stand up:

Do you think Obama made the right choice for his running mate?  Was Biden the best choice available?  Do you think all these gaffes and comedy show fodder are a liability?  If not Biden, do you think Obama should have chosen Hillary?

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

This question cannot be ignored.  With the government’s impending $700 billion bailout of U.S. financial institutions, we should review a few critical facts that reflect the state of our economy and our society.

The dictionary defines the word “socialism” as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

Now let’s look at the following facts:

• The federal government now owns 80% of AIG, the worlds largest insurer.
• The federal government owns and controls our retirement system (Social Security).
• The federal government owns and controls the healthcare system for the elderly.
• The federal government owns the majority of our mortgage industry.

Furthermore, if Barack Obama is elected, we may have further nationalization of healthcare, energy production, and corporate production, among other things.

As the government further intrudes into our free market, are we moving towards a more socialist society?  I know it’s far-fetched to think such a thing, but one cannot deny the facts listed above. 

What do you think?  Do you think, as we head towards more nationalization (whether directly or indirectly), that the United States is becoming more socialist?

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden today called paying taxes “patriotic.” 

At a campaign stop Biden was promoting Senator Barack Obama’s tax plan.  When asked whether, under Obama’s plan, wealthier Americans would have to pay more, Biden said, “It’s time to be patriotic . . . time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Under Obama’s plan, households that earn more than $250,000 per year would, indeed, pay more taxes, and households that earn less than $250,000 per year would receive tax breaks.

Do you consider paying taxes “patriotic”?  If so, do you think the wealthy should pay more in taxes than they do now?

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

Yesterday, we recapped each presidential candidate’s take on this week’s financial meltdown.  Senators Barack Obama and John McCain each cited different reasons why companies like Lehman Brothers and AIG were in dire financial straits.  Obama blamed President George W. Bush’s economic policies, while McCain blamed Wall Street corruption.  Each individual also proposed different plans for reversing the current financial turmoil.

However, simply because two Presidential candidates offer compelling reasons for why the U.S. economy is in its current state doesn’t mean they’re right.

Today’s Investor’s Business Daily places the blame for today’s financial mess, in large part, on President Bill Clinton. 

It “was the Clinton administration,” states the article, ”obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.” 

Specifically, “[t]ough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making.  It was either that or face stiff government penalties.”

In light of this unique take on the current financial disaster on Wall Street, who do you agree with?  Do you think it was, indeed, Bill Clinton who instigated this mess with government over-regulation, which, in turn, undermined the free markets?  Or do you think it was the “failed Bush policies,” as cited by Obama?  If neither of those reasons, would you, like McCain, blame corruption on Wall Street? 

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.

I was traveling over the weekend, which explains yesterday’s lack of a post.  But we’re back in full force today!

Even after yesterday’s financial bombshell, the economy doesn’t seem to be in dire straits.  I remember watching CNBC yesterday, and the forecast, nevertheless, appeared to be all gloom and doom.

However, it’s no secret that the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and Bank of America’s purchase of Merrill Lynch illustrate that the financial markets and the U.S. economy have some serious issues.  The economy does seem to be teetering on the edge of a downturn. 

With the general election campaign in full swing, the respective candidates are addressing the economy and how each would deal with it as President.

Senator Barack Obama alleges that investors have been reckless and blames the current economic downturn on “failed Bush policies.”  Obama has called for higher taxes on the wealthy and on businesses to help alleviate American economic hardship.

On the other hand, Senator John McCain blames corruption on Wall Street and remains optimistic about the state of the economy.  He stated that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy, which he says “is the American worker,” are strong.  The American worker, he says, ”is the strongest, the best, the most productive and most innovative.”  McCain has also stated various times that lower taxes, not higher taxes, are the answer. 

Who do you think has a better plan for the economy?  Obama or McCain?  Under which President (Obama or McCain) do you think the economy will fare better?

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to our full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.