From <a href="http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com">The Political and Financial Markets Commentator</a>

From <a href="http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com">The Political and Financial Markets Commentator</a>. Visit and sign-up for your free email or feed delivery.

<strong>What Would The United States Do If A Missile Out Of North Korea Was Headed Towards Hawaii? Let's Ask Secretary Of Defense Gates:</strong>
<strong></strong>
<span style="font-size:85%;">"Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Gates said North Korea "probably will" fire the missile, prompting the host of the show to ask, "And there's nothing we can do about it?"</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
"No," Gates answered, according to an account of the interview on foxnews.com. "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
Last week, Navy Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said in an interview with ABC News that the U.S. military was "fully prepared" to shoot down the missile, if ordered to do so. But Gates said Sunday such a response was unlikely.</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
<strong>"I think if we had an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii, that looked like it was headed for Hawaii or something like that, we might consider it," Gates said. "But I don't think we have any plans to do anything like that at this point."</strong></span> (<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/not-prepared-stop-north-korea/story.aspx?guid=%7B2F21B81C%2DF016%2D4240%2D9CC2%2DEE7833BADA71%7D">MarketWatch</a>)

<a title="Blue Hawaii by janruss, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/janinerussell/2121859675/"><img height="328" alt="Blue Hawaii" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/2121859675_0213b1e9a2.jpg" width="500" /></a>

Hmmmm. Has Hawaii heard about this? I would hope if a missile was headed for New York, the Pentagon would do more than just think about shooting it down. Is Hawaii expendable, or does this exchange indicate the state of our foreign policy?

Are we operating under benign neglect? Through policy by omission as opposed to commission?

Where, I ask again, is <strong>Secretary of State Clinton</strong> through all of this. Is she waiting at the United Nations to be ready to put in our complaint to the Security Council when North Korea test fires this missile? Is she personally observing the dismantling of our missile defense in Eastern Europe so that we can then rely on the Russians to take care of the nuclear threat in Iran?

It seems as if our foreign policy is going to be to react when God forbid something happens. I personally don't think that is a foreign policy. It is the old hope and pray. <strong>The Obama administration seems to want to go to the polar opposite point of the Bush administration in terms of foreign policy.</strong> They don't even want to say anything that may appear to be combative for fear of sounding less than diplomatic.

That stance has gotten us to the point of an imminent missile test firing and the planned trial of two journalists accused violating the North Korean border. As I have said the Obama administration is being tested, and so far the grade is not an A.

Maybe we can hurry up and get a quick U.N. Resolution.

<p><strong></strong></p>
<p></p>

Note: I find the bonuses paid to the AIG executives and financial "geniuses" that created and sold the products that has helped to bring the economy of the United States and the world to its knees to be abhorrent and bordering on the immoral. If there is a way to abrogate them within the boundaries of contract law, then it must be done! That said, let's move on.

What Is The "Political Risk Premium" For Doing Business?

Populism is a discourse which claims to support "the people" versus "the elites". Populism may comprise an ideology urging social and political system changes and/or a rhetorical style deployed by members of political or social movements. Generally, populism invokes an idea of democracy as being solely the expression of the people's will.

I use these words and political commentators use these words, but how many have actually seen a definition. When you read them it really shines a light on how it is that our government runs, and why it is that it is so dysfunctional. When we look at the goings on in Washington over the last week or so as it concerns the political uproar over the bonuses being paid to executives at AIG, there are really no other words to describe it.

The AIG bonus situation is an issue to be hashed out by lawyers that specialize in contract law. Can bonuses contractually agreed to be rescinded out of hand in a situation where a company is still a going concern, albeit one that took TARP money. Maybe, and I certainly hope so. But the fact remains that these are not items to be taken lightly. In order to negate the validity of a contract, there needs to be some basis in law, and not done simply because it makes good theater for the people back home.

If and when we get to the point as a country where contracts can be overturned at the whim of a populist position taken by a politician with the power to do it, then who in their right minds would have the faith and confidence to enter into a contract? Where does capitalism go from there?

To recap: Are these bonuses being paid to many of the same people that helped get the country into the situation that it finds itself in repugnant, disgusting, immoral? Yes they are, but the fact remains that we are a country of contracts and laws, and if these contracts are able to be rendered invalid simply because the masses find them to be incredibly wrong and the politicians find a cause that is both populist AND politically expedient, then we as a capitalist society are going down a slippery slope.

What other contracts don't we like? Mortgages? Car Leases? Student Loans? Contracts signed with another business? If the moral outrage was strong enough and the politicians saw the opportunity to glom onto the cause, could we just have them rendered null and void?

These same politicians exhibiting their moral outrage also have a lot of explaining to do. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Tim Geithner and their bands of merry men and woman are not blameless in all of this, not by a longshot. They do however, have the unmitigated audacity to get up on the bully pulpit, waste the taxpayers time and money running hearings to do publicly what could be done privately, and engage in the populist rhetoric when they should be in another hearing room sitting at the table answering their own set of questions about how and why we are now where we are.

All Hail The King

Now for full disclosure I listen to Rush, enjoy the show, agree with some but not all of the things that he says, and certainly do not consider him to be the leader of the Republican Party, titular or otherwise. The masses that don't listen to him dislike or even hate him out of hand, primarily because they are led to that conclusion by the main stream media, not to mention the many politicians leaning left.

"Obama, Begala, and Carville vs. Rush (National review Online) How curious: Free-thinking commentators Paul Begala and James Carville have each set their sights on Rush Limbaugh in recent days. Begala shamefully called Rush a "corpulent drug addict" during a Situation Room segment on Friday, and today Carville appeared on American Morning to tout his new column attacking Rush and mocking the GOP for being beholden to a radio talk show host. Coincidentally, these media analysts just happened to pick up on the exact same meme President Obama conspicuously initiated late last month, when he scolded Republicans for Rush's undue influence over the party. Boy, these on-message talking points are so well-coordinated, it's almost as if Begala, Carville, and oh, I don't know, the President's Chief of Staff hold daily conference calls, or something."

Thanks to commentators like James Carville and Paul Begala, Rush has become a marketing tool of the left that have somehow anointed him as the spiritual and philosophical leader of the Republican Party, picking perhaps the most radioactive public figure that they possibly could to try and turn into the face of the Republican Party. They have made him the basis of Democrat talking points, with the typical American Democrat and particularly liberal Democrat buying in hook, line and sinker.

Now anyone that listens to talk radio with anything close to something resembling an open mind, would certainly not agree with all of what anyone has to say. They would also not disagree with everything. You take from it what you will, and that will form the basis for constructive debate. Not the case with what appears to be a laser guided marketing campaign that must have started at the upper echelon of the Democrat Party. It is designed to tear the Republican product down.

Using my humble blog as a small sample of the anecdotal evidence of the Rush obsession, the comments that I get both here and primarily in the discussion groups that I copy it to are all Rush, all the time. Let's look at some examples:

- i guess that's why this blog keeps getting shorter...(your saying the same s..t)are you becoming the next rush limbaugh? it seems so...you are all about hype and sensationalism...

- ...well said Douglas. What ARE the poor neo-cons and Rush Disciples going to do if things stabilize and even show modest improvement under Obama? Who will they blame for all their failed policies and archaic ideologies then?...

Obama Administration Naivete: Missile Defense Compromise

An Inside Look At The Defense Plans Of The Obama Administration

Taking the media back burner to the the economic nuclear winter that we are currently in, is the state of our foreign defense policy and our missile defense initiative plans in Eastern Europe. This is coupled with our desire, as well as the desire of most of the civilized world, to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons of it's own.

President Barack Obama sent a secret letter to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev weeks ago suggesting that we would halt development of the United States’ missile defense program in Eastern Europe if Russia helped resolve the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

Read the full story at The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com

The Political and Financial Markets Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)

Monday, February 23, 2009

What Will Save Our Economy?

How Do We Get Ourselves Out Of This Crisis?

I have been accused by some readers of being a "Monday morning quartback", of critisizing and not offering solutions and of getting the facts wrong about why we are in the mess we are in. The fact of the matter is that the only one in that list that I am actually guilty of is not being able to offer a credible solution to a problem that is slowly sucking the country and the world down.

Now I am a pretty smart guy, but not smart enough to have the answer to a problem that the "best" minds on Wall Street created (of course with the help of the politicians of both party's), and that the "best" minds on Wall Street, Washington, academia and elsewhere can't seem to solve.

If only they had used their power for good instead of evil.

In any event, as I have mentioned before when it comes to macro-economic issues as well as the inner workings of markets, I find Jim Cramer to be an extremely knowledgable source. Not the greatest stock picker in the world, but that's alright.

These are his thoughts on how we can get out of this problem, which is much more definitive than the ever changing drivel that keeps coming out of Washington.

Jim Cramer

Love him or hate him, the man has actionable and definitive ideas based on an extremely extensive and successful background on Wall Street and as an observer of the markets and economy.

"According to Cramer, neither nationalization, which does too much, or euthanasia, which does too little, will work to save the financial system. He said what will fix it, however, would be offering 40-year, 4% fixed rate mortgages to everyone, especially to those whose mortgages are based on current appraisals. He again advocated forbearance for the banks, with no "mark-to-market" rules enforced.


Cramer said we simply cannot let the chips fall where they may, and the alternative of nationalizing will wipe out the preferred stock and so much more."

This is a short synopsis of his idea, but to me it sounds as if it makes more sense than any of the start and stop plans that we have gotten out of Washington so far. I know the same critics will say that Obama has now ony been in office for _____ days, but Tim Geithner has been on the scene for a lot longer than that (the guy the administration just had to have despite his tax problems), as have the members of congress, and all of them still can't seem to be able to grab their own a___s with both hands.

Maybe they should bring in some new outside advisors. Sphere: Related Content