I have found your blog through Google and find that we may both mutually benefit from exchanging blog links. I run http://FinancialDerivatives.net and get a lot of traffic everyday. By exchanging blog links on our Blog Rolls both of our sites will benefit greatly in search engine ranks. I look forward to hearing back from you!

Kindest Regards,

Shane E. Drozdowski

Can you please describe what are alternatives that could be used when issuing preferred shares in terms of their affect on bank covenants?

By the way, I’m glad I accidentally bumped into your blog. I will keep coming back to see what’s being discussed.

Thanks!

Just a general comment…I find that the politicians these days may not be as stupid as they seem, but rather they tend to be easier influenced and affected by the pressures of the media, general public (who apply pressure based on misleading and often incomplete information), as well as industry. I think that has contributed to making the pendulum swing more wildly in recent years as well.

Also, the world has become much more complicated, issues have become more sensitive, and conflicts are growing due to increased in extremes as well. However, I hope that each time society tips one way, it goes back the other way and eventual find a balance to all the issues.

You both have very interesting points. Again thank you for sharing. Please feel free to comment more in the future!

Have a great weekend!

I didn’t intend nor do I think I did, to use elitist as a pejorative. I also was not saying that education is bad.

Terry Schiavos was dead and he politicians should have kept out of it. But the case merely proved that most politicians, no matter how smart they may be, are in reality stupid…they never know when to fold up and go home.

I am not a believer so don’t look to me to defend the Right’s injection of religion into politics. I thought that the Bush faith based initiative was designed to fund organizations that were providing charitable aid to the poor…if it was abused, why would that surprise anyone? Theoretically these programs supplemented government programs.

I favor smaller government…but frankly came to the conclusion years ago that the population of the USA was too large for smaller government to handle. We had passed the point where we can effectively reduce the size of government, so clammering for smaller government was useless. The people have come to expect uniformity among the states so eliminating the feds wouldn’t work.

The famed “Clinton Budget Surplus” was nonexistent … it was strictly an accounting gimmick that the media glommed onto and made “fact” by repetition.

Government is notoriously inefficient and the so-called spying on Americans was minimal and of no consequence. I have yet to meet anyone who’s library records have been compromised.

And the use of technology to catch those who plot against us is what government is supposed to do. When, as and if they abuse it, appropriate action can be taken to redress any violation.

Frankly, for decades the IRS and DEA have conducted more intrusive, and seemingly violative invasions of ciizen privacy than did the FBI or Homeland Security pursuant to the Patriot Act.

Have a great weekend ……………

The idea of incrementalism can be applied to the right as well. Did you worry about incrementalism when George Bush ignored the Constitution to spy on US citizens. You could argue that it was for national security, but did it give you pause as to what might come next? Did the great volume of signing statements concern you, giving him the ability to ignore parts of legislation that he didn’t like. Again, maybe it didn’t amount to much, but did it make you think twice? Did it concern you when the government (Republican legislatures and the President) got involved in the very personal medical decision of the Schiavos down in Florida? After all, since when should a supposedly “small” government administration intrude on it’s citizens personal lives? Did it bother you when George Bush instituted the faith based initiative when it could be a slippery slope to removing the separation of church and state from our founding principles? Again, maybe not a big thing all by itself… Coming from a small government perspective, did it concern you when the federal government promoted the Marriage Amendment to prevent loving couples from marrying because they happen to be gay? I would think that small government doesn’t just apply to economic policy but the idea that the government should stay out of people’s personal lives as well? And incrementalism could be argued to have come from the previous administration as well of the current President.

As for the term elitist, I don’t like people who look down on others either. In fact, the “common” man or woman is a group that I should fit quite easily into. I am happily married for twenty years, have three children, live in rural southeast US, work hard, pay my taxes, write letters to the editor, drive safely, go to church, drink a little wine with dinner, stay out of trouble, support my schools and my community, etc.

Unfortunately the people that charge elitist would probably lump me into the elitist camp because I believe in pursuing education, in being open minded, and in exploring different cultures and perspectives. I am not content to believe what everyone else believes without great scrutiny, including people that seem to think like me. I have wonderful arguments with people that, like me, agree with the President on most things. This would include my husband. Disagreement is healthy, but labeling just shuts down discussion.

With respect, I really want to challenge you on this because we seem to be becoming a country that looks down on people that want to improve themselves or that can see the other side of an issue. There may be a few snobs out there, but they are just as frequently people with a high school education who look down on me because I have a college degree. Or religious dogmatists who look down on me because I don’t take a fundamentalist view of the bible. Or creationists who want my kids to stop studying Darwin in biology. These are just examples, but if we describe elitists as people who look down on others, aren’t they being elitist too? Don’t they, too, think they are the experts for the rest of us?

So, just to make sure you understand, I do not like snobbery, but I am adamant that people learn as much as possible about the world around them from a variety of sources, both left, right and in the middle. If that makes someone elitist, so be it.

Now, I am not telling you that you do not make informed decisions because I do not know what you read, where you get your facts, etc. You seem like an intelligent person, but I am only objecting to your use of the word “elitist” as a perjorative aimed at people who hold different political or cultural views than you do. And I also object to people that ignored the previous 8 years and only recently became concerned about “big” government.

We have got to stop labeling people negatively because they disagree with us or are to the right or left politically than we are. And we, as Americans, cannot afford to ignore the abuses of power by those that are members of our political party. Were you as critical of Bush when he turned a surplus (handed over by Clinton against the objections of Republicans who wanted tax cuts) into raging deficits. I don’t remember any loud protesting or tea parties when Bush was turning black ink into red. I don’t remember any protests when Bush and the Republicans pushed for and got the vast entitlement program of Medicare part D. The money that George Bush spent on tax cuts, war and entitlement spending could come in handy right now. Where was everybody when this was happening? Did you criticize George Bush for these things. Maybe you did. But I don’t remember hearing much from the right about fiscal irresponsibility, small government, or goverment abuse of power then. Are they just made because a Democrat is in power?

Beverly