News media ignores politics at what cost to you?

You know, of the many things that disturb me about the current Administration and the Democrat-led Congress, the most scary has to be the lack of attention being given to their actions by the major media. Seriously, since the election of President Obama the media has fallen asleep at the wheel. At least if you compare the coverage and criticism given to the last 5 Presidents and Congresses.

Take for example the flip-flop of President Obama. He has stated repeatedly that the Government is not in the business of running various private businesses. Yet he has ensured the firing of a CEO of a car company, taken ownership positions in dozens of banks and 2 automakers, and has traded bailouts for ownership in multiple industries. Which says nothing of the mandates on how several of these once private businesses are going to be run. Yet the media is quiet.

Then there is the on-going flimflam of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She has gone from stating that she always opposed torture and waterboarding, to have been found to have been aware and silent about the aggressive interrogations, to denying knowledge, to deflecting the nature and degree of her knowledge. She has even gone so far as to accuse the CIA of lying – though she still has yet to officially form a single complaint of their supposed actions. Which stinks of covering her ass as she is caught playing polispeak and sucking up to polls. Yet the major news media downplays the entire event.

Hell, the major news media has all but ignored the most obvious of actions by the Obama Administration and the Democrats. I mean President Obama directly told the American public he is going to virtually triple the national debt with his budget, and the major news media didn’t blink. He directly looked out at America and said he is going to spend some $63 billion dollars a year on a healthcare plan, that does not even exist in an outline – and the major media looked away. And when the Democrat-led Congress violated the Constitution by enacting retro-active penalties and destroying the power of contracts, the news media sat quiet.

How is it that all these things are happening in the Government and the news media that loved to assault President Bush is so impotent today? Why would they allow this?

Perhaps the fact that the major news media companies spent millions to elect President Obama has something to do with this. Perhaps the fact that the downtrend in traditional media sources has accelerated with the bad economy, and thus now has them on the line for the next set of bailouts is a factor. Or maybe they just want to be a part of the groups controlling the direction that the Government is taking.

No matter which way you look at it, the result is the same. The general public is being distracted with arguments about American Idol, as liberties and laws are being subverted. This is all in the name of the greater good, but such is the path to Hell paved.

You can’t even say that they are acting in the best interest of the nation, because when President Bush made decisions with America potentially under threat of imminent attack the news media pounded him at ever turn. So it may be more fair to say that they are acting in the best interest of their profits, and political power base, as opposed to the benefit of the nation.

Politics has not been a major issue of popularity in this nation since the late 70’s. And as interest has waned, the size and reach into private lives of the Government has grown. Which is always a bad thing. But it is far worse when the people that are supposed to be helping the public are busy trying to help themselves.

None can serve 2 masters, and do so well. The media is no different. Their division in primary goals lead them to lose ground to the internet. Now they have focused on one purpose, self-preservation at all costs. They have rallied under the banner of Democrats, at an unknown cost to you and me.

Some may think I am making too much of all this. Some may think this is minor. But I will ask you this. If any of these things occurred under President Bush, do you in all honesty think that the major news media would have sat back and said nothing? Since that answer is no, why is it a good thing that they are quiet now?

Chrysler - the bad bet of President Obama

You know what's really sad about the economy? What really angers me about the bailouts? The way that the Obama Administration, Congress, and the Bush Administration have all wasted our money.

Yes even the anointed President Barack Obama is complicit in the waste of money that has been the bailouts and stimulus package. While President Bush started this waterfall of taxpayer money, and Congress has failed in every respect on these matters, President Obama has jumped in with both feet on making this a costly mistake since day 1.

Chrysler has now declared bankruptcy. They told America they would back in November of 2008 when they didn't get the full bailout they requested, along with the rest of the U.S. automakers. Rather than allowing the automakers to do the inevitable, the Government has thrown away our money in amounts that are near incomprehensible. Chrysler alone is responsible for some $10 billion of our money that will now not only fail to send our kids to school, or buy new homes, or build new businesses, but has effectively vaporized.

Of course there will be a cheer from Democrats since the American Government now owns 8% of Chrysler. What a bargain. They paid more than top dollar for a miniscule percentage of ownership, that currently is worthless. But don't worry, the Government can always buy more with your taxes and printing as much money as it wants. Your kid didn't need college anyway.

This is not a joke. I'm being serious. President Obama announced to the nation, along with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, that the only way to save American jobs and fend off a depression was to keep the automakers out of bankruptcy. That was a big part of the $1.29 trillion that President Obama spent in the first 100 days. Yet bankruptcy is what has happened.

Can you imagine $10 billion dollars? Does it make sense? Imagine a stack of dollar bills that reaches to the moon and back, with lots of money left over. That's how much money just disappeared.

Had the Democrat leadership just said no, and allowed the car makers to fail there would be that much more money available to help people survive this outcome. There would be that much money ready to help new smaller businesses to pick up the pieces of the failed companies and create new jobs and innovation. But the Government knows better than you or I. The Government can manage everything better - though facts to the contrary abound.

Think about this. If the Government is wrong about the billions it gave Chrysler, which has been proven by the bankruptcy, what else is it wrong about? That a depression will not be the outcome of this action? That they wasted more of our money on bad ideas than AIG, the automakers, and most of the major banks combined? That the total of the Congress and the President have less knowledge and acumen in the world of business than your local paperboy?

Each of the political parties is culpable in this mess. They all have played their part in creating this fiasco over the past two decades at least. But I must say that all the polispeak of President Obama stands out the most. Because the buck stops at the President, and his assurances are the ones that have failed the biggest right now.

I am pissed off because of in my forced ownership of Chrysler (via the bailouts using my cash like yours), I gain nothing. Had I made the choice of what to do with my money, I would have kept it in my pocket. Or gone out to a small dinner and helped the economy. Or added it to my investments (though future taxes on those investments would surely be more than the some of money I started with). I might even had given it to charity (though the tax on that gift might have been more than my charitable gift now that President Obama raised the taxes on that too).

Simply put, the President and the Democrat-led Congress made a bad bet. If they were a publicly run corporation I'd have shorted their stock long ago. But instead of their stock price going down, national unemployment is continuing to rise, my tax bill is increasing, I'm paying a mortgage of other Americans on top of my own mortgage, and I get to fear for my ability to maintain just what I have. Because they made their bets with my money, and yours.

This will no doubt be spun to blame everyone but the current Administration and Congress. There will be no end to the flowery views of future green cars and some abundant productivity in the future. But the fact staring us all in the face is that all those dreams would have been just as true, and likely, without an extra $10 billion in debt for the nation.

The first 100 days of President Obama

So we have made it thru the first 100 days under President Obama. The nation is still called America. This is still a democracy. The public, and more importantly the major media, still love President Obama. But this is no longer the nation that I grew up in.

There have been many changes under the Obama Administration, some due to the President and other due to the Democrat-led Congress. All of the changes have been based in the goals of the far-left and selected campaign promises.

Let's start with the appointees. There are many critical Cabinet positions that have yet to be filled. Several have had a revolving door of nominees, leaving some of the most critical positions that effect the economy open. Worse yet, there has been an undeniable consistency that virtually every Democratic nominee has failed to pay taxes, in some cases for multiple years, until nominated. Which is troubling in a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of way.

But beyond the appointees are other troubles.

President Obama has failed to live up to many of his campaign promises. The Guantanamo Bay Detention will be closed, eventually, though there is mass confusion on what to do with the detainees. Will some be imprisoned in American jails. If so at what higher cost than normal. If not in America then to where? So far only France has accepted exactly 1 detainee. So much for international support and their belief in President Obama.

President Obama has failed to increase transparency on 7 of 9 major laws since taking the Oval Office. This too was a campaign promise that was broken. The most notable case of this was the $787 billion stimulus bill. A stimulus package that does not spend all the money now, that limits the income level of those that can use it, that applies only to citizens that RECEIVE a paycheck, and is primarily a tool of social change.

There are numerous examples of millions being spent on projects like artwalks, skate parks, and non-existent homeless projects in cities without homeless problems. All of these are attributable to the stimulus package, and the fact that to this date almost none of the members of any level of the Government has read the full law. In fact almost no member of Congress or the White House read the entire bill before it was voted on and approved by Democrats. Nor did the public get a chance to read it before President Obama passed it into law. The reverberations of this are still being felt now.

Moving on, President Obama has enforced the ability to gain an abortion, even in later term pregnancies. Which is in line with his long-standing political beliefs, though not exactly the beliefs of the nation at large.

President Obama has approved the use of embryonic stem cells, another issue that flies in the face of overall public opinion.

President Obama allowed Congress to break the Constitution by retro-actively penalizing American citizens. This was in the form of specific and non-grandfathered taxes to the executives at AIG. These taxes were on bonuses that the executives received as part of their contract, that the Government did not renegotiate when they had the chance, and in fact guaranteed in the stimulus package that no one read. The Congressman that guaranteed the money? Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat and in charge of the Banking Committee.

Also, while violating the Constitution - which President Obama taught at one point - the concepts of all contracts were broken. In violating the contracts that the Government itself assured, all contracts are theoretically void. Because if the Government can break one it can break them all.

Plus the Government asserted its ability to control private business. First in taxing the AIG executive, thus stating the Government can retro-actively dictate pay. Then in forcing the removal of the CEO of a major auto company, while demanding changes to the operations of that company along lines that only the Government desired.

All this before the Government requested the expansion of power to allow the Treasury Secretary, an un-elected position, the ability to take over any company that it deems is significant to the nation based on undefined criteria. Which if passes will allow the Government to theoretically take control of any and all companies it chooses to.

But President Obama has done more. He has ended the Iraq War, by removing troops (a campaign promise) in an extended timeframe with the exception of 50,000 troops (both violations of the same campaign promise).

President Obama has also proposed his new budget. This is separate of the $410 billion continuation bill that was passed, also funding 9,000 pork-barrel projects. It was passed the same day that President Obama made a public outcry to stop wasteful spending by the Government. And it violated a campaign promise to end pork-barrel spending.

But the $3.6 trillion dollar budget of President Obama does not include the continuation bill or the stimulus package. It does include some $600 billion for a nationalized healthcare plan, that does not exist today nor have any plans of how it might be implemented. And this budget, going by President Obama's own best case figures will reduce the budget by 50% in 4 years. This part has been highly publicized. What has not been publicized is the rest of the budget plan.

President Obama's budget goes on after year 4 for a total of 10 years. By the end of that time, according to the President himself, the deficit will have increased by 250%. Few in the major media discuss this outcome, nor question how any plan that creates a larger deficit than it starts with can be called positive or effective.

But like every Administration, there have been bumps in the road. Besides the appearance that no appointee in the Obama Cabinet pays their taxes, while demanding that citizens must do so in greater numbers, there have been other gaffes. Like the recent decision to fly a plane over New York City without notification of the Mayor or any public notification - creating a panic based on the 9/11 events. There has also been the bow that President Obama bestowed - which has been described as everything but what your eyes will see in the video. There is the publicly friendly, and privately harsh, discussion with Hugo Chavez. There was the embarrassing gifts to our strongest ally's leadership and monarchy.

Yes the Obama Administration has had a hit parade. And these are only the most public and notable points. There are many other quieter, even less publicized actions affecting law and governance, and the appearance of the nation.

Like the now unspoken manner in which North Korea essentially turned it's nose up to the U.S. and fired a rocket that in one move threatened our ally Japan, and our nation itself. This cemented the fact that America has less respect and instills less fear than ever before on the world stage. An idea confirmed as our Secretary of State, and President, issued apologies for the existence of America and our actions to continue to exist.

Yet on the domestic side of the table things are even more unstable. America now fights terrorists, and the ideal of terrorism, by giving it a new name. The idea must be that there cannot be a terrorist act if the Government cannot call anyone a terrorist. That is except of Americans themselves.

Yes, because the Government - in the guise of Napalitano - has sought to isolate those that disagree with the governance of the land. Those that hold ideologies separate of the Administration, that have vowed to defend this nation with their life, and/or those that believe a religion strongly have been placed at the top of the list of dangers to America. Quietly, and without public scrutiny. The Amish and bloggers like myself be warned.

This is but the briefest coverage of the first 100 days of the Obama Administration. Likely each point will be something ignored by the major media. Yet it is these things that define where America is truly going. And doing so with smiles. President Obama's approval rating is over 60%.

So though this has been used to describe President Bush, I think it more directly applies to the America that President Obama is shaping

"So this is how Democracy ends. With thunderous applause." - Princess Amidala in Star Wars Episode 3

But if the poll on my sites are correct, Democrats had best watch the clock carefully. Because their time in the sun may well be short. My poll results state that since the inauguration the total outlook by my readers that responded are

39% feel President Obama has kept his promises and is doing a great job
38% feel President Obama has BROKEN his promises and is doing a horrible job
16% feel they need more time to decide
13% feel President Obama is the same as any other President

My poll may be small, but I believe that my readers are some of the most informed, intelligent in the blogosphere (well overwhemingly most are minus the ones that shout profanities), and those from America are real representations of America. Thus I would state that this is the real view middle America holds.

So in summary, President Obama promised change. He never clarified what that meant or what he would change. After 100 days we now have an indication. It is a change indeed. Though none I know would have voted for this.

Thankfully we will have the mid-term elections soon, and might be able to reverse or hold off the worst of that change.

Greeting the Obama Administration

And now the shoe has dropped. Yes it has happened, an American now tops the FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list (or disgruntled native criminals or whatever the Obama Administration calls a terrorist these days). No one should be surprised. Not after the memos came out about targeting right wing conservatives.

Just the other day, as I was going to New York City, I was thinking about what this new direction the Obama Administration was taking meant to the average American. I noted that a Somali pirate, an Al Quida terrorist, or any number of other people and groups that dream of America ceasing to exist are all less important to this Government than my blog posts. Yep, my writing is more dangerous to America than Osama Bin Laden.

At least that is the indication the Obama Administration is making. Because I am a former Marine, intelligent, conservative, and Republican. That just screams extremist – especially when you consider that I reach over 125 countries and tens of thousands of people every month on my blogs alone. I write for over 100 in total.

Yes I am on a watch list of law enforcement because I dare to be all those things, and I disagree with the highly socialist bent of the current Presidential Administration. I’m sure of it, because Blogger just proposed to shut down my blogs as spam sites. They have only been around for over 3 years now. It’s resolved now, I think, but isn’t the timing interesting.

But how dare I mention this. Yet if anyone might think the proposal by the Government was harsh or politically motivated, someone had to be on the list that everyone agreed needed to be caught. Thus everything else is a coincidence, or paranoia.

It’s like a magician’s slight of hand. Let me distract you from the important issue of a Government becoming bigger and socialist by pointing at a danger. Don’t pay attention to the broken campaign promises or violations of the Constitution and law of the land, fear losing your job. Don’t notice the complete ineptness of the politicians in place, hate a miniscule group of people who get paid a lot of money (and forget that the Government chose to pay them that money). Ignore the focus of the media and Government to remove any commentary that is counter to what the Government approves of, remember that they are all radicals (not left-wing radicals like Bill Ayers but right-wing radicals which are bad of course).

Look, I understand the need to be aware. America is a nation of extremists by definition. We radically opposed the rule of England to create this nation. We are made up of people (most of whom) left their homelands because they objected to some part of the ruling government there. We have fought amongst ourselves – the Civil War, Japanese internment, killing off Native American Indians, slavery, and so on. We have every religion on the face of the planet all living right next to each other; and more wars have been fought over that than anything. So I get the concern.

But this is ridiculous. According to the Government wishlist not only am I a subject of concern and require law enforcement monitoring, but so do the Amish. Yep, the Amish.

The Amish are radically extreme in their religious beliefs. They are ultra-conservative. They do not conform to society. They are against stem-cell research, green energy, hybrid cars, abortion, teaching about condoms, and a host of issues that liberal Democrats in the Government are promoting right now. According to the imperative that unofficially the Government wants to pursue, the Amish must be on the top of the list. If that does not explain how absurd this orientation is, let me clarify it a bit more.

The Government is not looking to watch true radicals. People like Bill Ayers is missing from the people that is the focus of the watch lists. His brand of terrorism is completely fine it seems.

Bill Ayers is a self described anarchist. Which means he would love to see the Americans Government collapse. He was involved with a radical terrorist group, that sought to destroy the government, by force. He has written propaganda supporting these thoughts. He is politically active in trying to pursue these thoughts. But he is the friend of, and initial supporter of President Obama, so he and his ilk are fine.

Think about that. The Government is upset if peaceful objection (the tax tea parties as an example) occurs. Yet the blatant rants of self-proclaimed extremists – that have acted to destroy the Government in the past – are considered harmless.

The Amish, news commentators, bloggers like myself are all targets of the Government now. But left-wing radicals like Bill Ayers are good guys. Because people like me, make comments the Government does not like. And it doesn’t matter that we may have criticized the prior Administrations as well. Because only this current incarnation is important. And nothing should interfere with their goals.

That is the message I am getting.

Does that sound like America to you. When you look past the polispeak, the smoke and mirrors, and observe the changes the Government is making and their implications, do you see a freer America or an image of the old USSR? I have lived in Russia, and I say it’s the latter.

In fact ask anyone who lived in a socialist or communist nation. Ask them why they left. Ask them how close the actions of President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority leader Harry Reid match up to non-democratic nations. You may be surprised by the answer.

So for all the Government law enforcement officials I say hello. And keep on reading, because I’m not about to stop.

President Obama - The economy has glimmers of improvement

Lately President Obama has been commenting on the positives in the economy. It’s a huge reversal of the absolutely impending doom that he has virtually preached before and after his inauguration. But the big question is if it is true.

Is the economy better? Did any of the things that the Obama Administration pushed forward helped? When will joe average feel more confident?

All good questions, but there is no clear answer so far.

If you look at the economy as a whole you get mixed answers. Looking at NY State I can say that I am aware of a huge mixed bag. There are several businesses that have folded just this month, or are looking to sell right now. This is in part the fault of the overall economy, but also has to do with all the new taxes that Gov. Patterson is enacting. It just costs too much to do business here, especially in a bad economy.

A great example is the fact that over the last 30 days sales of potato chips and snack foods for a large multinational chain have plummeted to all-time lows from Buffalo to Syracuse. Is that a reaction to the new food tax that Gov. Patterson has recently proposed? Add to that the fact that cigarette sales have now jumped as well, costing about $7 on average in Binghamton alone. Which flies in the face of the fact that a 15 minute drive provides cigarette buyers a roughly 35% discount if they cross the border and buy cigarettes in Pennsylvania. How much do you think the higher costs will help NY business owners?

Consider that while there are some businesses that are expanding, they tend to be larger businesses. The smaller private businesses that provide most of the jobs for the local economies are just dropping off the radar, leaving other connected businesses with nothing but a debit in their accounting. The ratio is such that for every job that is generated somewhere around 3 or 4 are being lost.

So is that an improving economy? Jobs are being created, but is the cost too high? And can any local or even federal economy survive such a discrepancy when even the most mundane products are encountering dramatic downturns?

And then there is the banking sector. We have banks that took Government bailout money, even if they didn’t need it (to have a hedge), that now are being strangled by Government intervention. New regulations are being required that are obtuse at best. Which is preventing banks from providing loans to businesses that normally would have been provided.

A recent conversation I had concluded

'We have these guys in the Government. They have never worked in finance. They don’t understand making a loan or stock market operations. But they are the ones making regulations on how to make a loan or oversee the stock market. What do they know about it? Nothing. But they are the ones overseeing everything, bogging down what works and flooding everything with what doesn’t work.'

Consider this, the Government is so far up banking that even if a bank that took public funds wants to pay back every dime and interest, the Government won’t accept it. That is part of the provisions of the stimulus plan that was passed without anyone, especially Congress, reading it. Government is imposing regulations that they themselves don’t understand, nor can comprehend the impact of. Government is actively demanding business transactions that have no proven benefit (like the demand for hybrid cars though the market is immature and still developing). All the while it is imposing new taxes that impede business growth, and/or increase the cost to the end consumer - like new taxes on energy that directly affects the end user and increasing taxes on businesses and investments limiting growth.

So is the economy really improving? Or is it just getting a polispeak political shuffle that makes some aspects look impressive while diverting attention from long-term problems. I once offered the example of lowering the average Americans debt, just as President Obama has offered to lower the national debt. No one that I presented this scenario to found it to be worthwhile, yet the Obama Administration's budget plans continue without discourse or change. How can this make sense?

Window dressing is great. The President finally speaking about the economy in terms that do not sound like chicken little is a bonus. But the long-term impact is something far more murky and glum.

If the current actions in New York State are any indication, the rollercoaster ride is hardly over. The worst of what is to come is far more dire than what we are being presented. True consumer confidence is still at arms reach, in the best case.

Take that all into consideration the next time you hear that the economy is glimmering with improvement. Because all that glitters is not gold.

Don't blink, Democrats might have paused on spending your money

Perhaps the most stunning news to be announced since President Obama won the election has just been made. It has nothing to do with global warming, creating green energy, or nationalized healthcare. It has nothing to do with the growing problems with China, Iran, or Afghanistan. But it does deal with the monumental spending that has occurred since the beginning of the year.

For the first time since Democrats have overtaken the Congress there is going to be some restraint in the spending spree. Yes, that is shocking. Said by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself, the Democrats might not spend even more money just because they can. Amazing.

This of course is in reference to the possibility of a second stimulus package (the first best described as the ‘Obama gift to liberals’). The mere concept of which denotes the complete failure of the first Obama stimulus package.

“I really would like to focus on the first one," Pelosi told reporters. "I think it's important that the American people and the Congress of the United States have confidence in the recovery package that we have passed.”

Yes confidence. Like the confidence that Representative Barney Frank, Chairman since 2007 of the Financial Services Committee – which he has been part of since 1981, had in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

“Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee since 2007, characterized Fannie Mae (Stock Quote: FNM) and Freddie Mac (Stock Quote: FRE) as "fundamentally sound financially" at a hearing in September 2003, as the two entities went through major accounting scandals. Frank also said he didn't want "the same kind of focus on safety and soundness" on Fannie and Freddie as other financial firms and preferred to "roll the dice a little bit more" to support subsidized housing.”

Or the confidence of Senator Chris Dodd – member of the Senate Banking Committee for 25 years and Chairman since 2007 –

“Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Committee of Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs since 2007, called Fannie and Freddie "one of the great success stories of all time" at another hearing in 2004, noting that they brought homeownership levels up to 70% of the American populace. As recently as last July, Dodd called the two entities "viable" institutions that were "fundamentally, fundamentally strong."

Or the confidence you might feel when President Obama states that his economic plans (blunders in my mind) will “save OR create 3.5 million jobs”[emphasis added by me]. A statement that is factually impossible to prove. In addition to being polispeak for ‘my ass is covered no matter what happens’ – in my opinion.

The confidence these critical lawmakers display is awe inspiring, if you happen to be an anarchist or stock market bear. This is especially true when you consider that Democrats waited for a Democrat President to be in office before spending $410 billion on keeping the Government afloat – including 9000 earmarks that President Obama directly stated in his campaign to be elected would be checked line by line to avoid wasteful spending.

Yes you can feel very confident that either President Obama lied to the American public, is impotent before a Democrat led Congress, or that both the President and Congress just don’t care how much they spend as long as they can get everything they have wished for in the past 30 years - to the tune of $3.5 trillion just for this years budget.

What else could explain the $787 billion dollar stimulus package that neither stimulates new businesses, encourages job growth, nor provides an incentive for Americans to buy anything. But that same package does wonders for just about every liberal goal and social engineering agenda you can name.

But it seems that for the moment Democrats have paused on the all-out spend at every turn mentality that is the hallmark of the Obama Administration so far. I feel as if I just won the lottery.

Dow Jones at 7600 - what I said, right and wrong

Back on November 18, 2008 I made a prediction. I said that in the first quarter the Dow Jones Index will hit 7600. I then proceeded to explain why it will do this and what will be happening. With the Dow having crossed my target I will reflect on what I said then.

“…auto makers are now first in line to ask for their own bailout,… And Congress will likely pony up the money for each of them.”

In fact the auto makers asked Congress for $50 billion dollars. As a surprising move, probably meant to give citizens the impression that Congress has some idea of what it is doing, the auto makers only received $15 billion.

Keep in mind that like the credit bailout, auto makers claimed at the time that the entire amount was needed or they would fail. To date the auto makes have not failed (though they have laid off workers, which was inevitable) nor has the economy though less than all the funds requested have been used.

“So far a 2nd stimulus plan is being conceived, growing from an initial hidden $50 billion, to $150 to $300, and now is being speculated at $500 billion dollars. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t just screw up, she does it with swings to the bleachers.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not only hit the bleachers, she hit it out of the park. The stimulus package is being signed by President Obama today at the eye-popping total of $787 billion. But only Democrats think there is no waste in the stimulus.

“This means that New York City will get crushed this year.”

So far the budget of New York State is so bad that Gov. Patterson is in the process of taxing citizens based on weight. And who knows what will be next, but be assured the State is in severely bad condition.

“President Obama will get inaugurated and the Dow will drop 500 points.”

In fact the Dow dropped every day from the start of 2009. On the inauguration the Dow jones Index dropped 337 points. Not the 500 I expected, but close enough.

“Oil prices should stabilize at around $65 - $70 per barrel to start the year…”

I am completely wrong. They are currently at about $37 a barrel of crude oil. The economic crisis is keeping demand way down, and so far oil is not being used as an alternative investment.

“Gold and precious metals should all increase dramatically in a similar manner to that of 2008.”

As of today, Gold hit $973.80 an ounce. It is within $36 of an all-time high, set last year.

“Growth in China will likely stall as well, especially since the boost from the Olympics will have faded.”

The World Bank has stated that real exports will be down 7.5% in 2009 (at 3.5% versus 11% in 2008) and the growth in that nation will slow to 7.5%, or down 1.9% from 2008.

“Taxes will increase roughly 3% on all income groups.”

Wrong so far, but just wait for it.

“Several mid-sized financials will fail, blame will go to short-sellers and corporate greed.”

Expectations are that this is on the horizon.

“Confidence in the U.S. Treasuries will weaken, and several nations will begin to sell in hopes of buying national debt of England and a few isolated nations.”

Thankfully I am wrong on this so far. I pray to remain incorrect. But there is no reason for any nation to buy Treasuries at below 5%. It’s just not worth it.

“Unemployment will hit a 20 year high, again raising fears of a depression.”

I cannot count the number of times Democrats, and President Obama, have stated we are in or about to be in a depression. Call it fear mongering if you want to be honest, but it’s a daily statement without question.

Unemployment recently broke a 28 year record.

“Iran and Russia will take aggressive stances in the world stage.”

They have been blustering a bit of late. But they have not taken a full-blown aggressive stance. Yet.

“If I am as correct as I was in 2008, then 60 - 70% of what I have said will occur, though not exactly in my timeframe.”

Well looking at it empiracally I would say that I have got it about 55% right so far. The 1st quarter isn’t over yet either. World politics can shift in a minute, so that might push up my percentages at any time. And honestly I don’t what the rest of what I expected to come true. It would mean devestation to millions.

I will stand by a though I made at that time as well though. I expect things to get a bit worse and hold through the second quarter. But given I had no idea what the stimulus package would entail, nor such a enormous wasteful pricetag I will ammend my thoughts.

The 2nd half of 2009 will be just as bad, if not worse than the first half. There is no stimulus in the stimulus package. There is nothing to preserve or create jobs. No sound person would use any of the paltry amounts the stimulus will provide to do anything but save, pay bills, or watch evaporate if gas and/or oil prices move up at all.

At this point I would imagine gold hitting $1150, crude oil eventually getting back to about $60 (mostly through alternative investment speculation and production cutbacks). I fear but expect unemployment to hit 10% by the end of the year. The 4th quarter will be horrible. Inflation will likely run 3% higher. The Dow Jones Index can be expected to drp another 500 and stabilze there over the next few months.

Again I will say that I hope I am wrong. I want to be completely wrong by the end of the year. I want to laugh at what I expected with tears of joy. But I doubt it.

I’m at 55% and we are only in the middle of the 2nd month of the year. With a liberal Democrat President, a Democrat-led Congress that is headed by 2 of the most incompetent (in my opinion) politicians in decades, and expectations of spending that might have been called astronomical only a few years ago.

But we will see. Do let me know what you think.

Senator Judd Gregg withdraws and highlights problem

Did anyone notice what just happened? Senator Gregg has just dropped from the nomination as the Commerce Secretary in the Obama Administration. Some may focus on the fact that this is the 2nd person to drop from that post. Some may question the multiple high-profile losses the Obama Administration has encountered. But that isn’t really important in this case.

The reason why Senator Gregg dropped out is important. Because he disagrees with the stimulus plan, which I don’t fault him for, and the census. And it is the census that should demand the most attention.

With so much attention focused on the stimulus and economic conditions of the nation there are several other things happening in the Obama Administration that is being unseen. And with a corrupted news media that still swoons when the President appears, the public is being denied the opportunity to speak about or learn what is happening.

Why is the census important?

The census is more than just a count of the people of the nation. It’s political power. It’s who has control of that power.

Currently the Commerce Department runs the census. And they use human beings to go out and visually count who lives where and how many. Based on those reports the House of Representatives grows or shrinks. With that change comes many other repercussions.

As an example, let’s say that San Francisco is a bastion of far-left liberal democrats. Lets say they have 2 million people according to the last census run by the Commerce Department.

Now what is being proposed by the White House is that they will run the census (or in thier words "work closely with the census director"), and not the Commerce Department. In addition the White House feels that computer models are far more efficient and accurate in deciding how many people live where.

But unlike the Commerce Department, the White house will not publish the computer models, just the results. So like any statistical poll, the models can be made to say almost anything wanted.

Thus in my example, San Francisco could become a city of 5 million people. That doubles the number of Representatives from that city and increases the Democrat power in Congress. The same model could decrease the population in any Republican or Conservative leaning city or town in the same manner. Thus we have an artificial imbalance of power arbitrarily and specifically created by those already in power.

Also going along with this ability to shape political outcomes is the ability to reward those the White House likes, and punish those it does not.

In the same example the increase in population would also give more federal money to San Francisco. That money, like the power would be taken from other cities and towns that the White House does not like, let’s say Dallas for example.

In essence it is a bribe and a manipulation of the Government. It is warping the democratic system this nation is based on. It is purposively taking the power of the people and redistributing it based on the whim of a small group of people, that may not have the best interest of the nation at hand. And who knows how such a hidden, non-transparent system may be abused in the future.

This is not what President Obama promised the nation before and after getting elected President. In fact this violates a promise President Obama did make.

Something needs to be said about this. Something needs to be done to prevent this. Because some far-left wingnuts like Moveon.org may love this idea, but most Americans are far more level-headed and rational that that.

The Dow Jones Index does not lie

Unless one of the better turn arounds of the stock market history occurs in the next 10 minutes, the Dow Jones will have fallen several hundred points, around the range of 7900 or less (a mere 300 points from a target I predicted over 3 months ago). This is happening at the same time that the Senate has pass the economic stimulus package created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, bloated by Democrats, and touted by President Obama. So I have to wonder, exactly which people involved with the economy think this is a good plan?

This plan, and the extensive bailouts that President Obama’s tax dodging Treasury Secretary Geithner, are proposing obviously have not convinced the critical group of Americans that good times are anywhere close to the horizon. Since these investors also represent a large portion of the small and mid-sized business owners in America, as well as the world, I expect only one thing. All the emphasis of gloom and fear drummed up by Democrats will actually come to pass. Just as a result of their actions, and not the inaction they claim.

Unemployment in the nation is bad. Not quite the nearly 11% level that the policies of the Carter Administration created, but President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress have just gotten started. We currently hover at 7.8% unemployment, with the seeming goal of 25% reached in the Great Depression getting closer to the crosshairs each day.

None of this has stopped any Democrat, including the President from pressing forward. We have waste and pet projects, call them earmarks by another name, and little hope of improvement. Just look at what is planned.

“$10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other "priority procurements" by the Coast Guard.”

That says nothing of the $100 million to be spent on Honey bees and similar items I cannot imagine creating jobs.

“The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years.” – President Obama

“The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

But the polispeak is great. The promises of improvement sound fantastic when you include supposed facts that no one can ever corroborate. And the inclusion of key words like “save” helps keep the polispeak from becoming an outright lie, while showing the absolute lack of confidence that the plans instill. Yet this is good enough for the average American that does not review transcripts nor listen intently to ever word. But those who invest and run companies do, more often than not.

“The economic stimulus bill would allocate about $20 billion to help hospitals and doctors transition from paper charts to electronic health records for their patients… By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings, the Congressional Budget Office reported last year.”

Again it is the confusion of facts and expectations, without proof, that keep many Americans from noticing the horrendous ramifications of the stimulus package and continued bailouts. The examples are not limited to just these few statements, but a collection of comments to the public since Pelosi first stumbled into the idea of another stimulus package in October (then priced at $50 billion total), and the factual items in the nearly $900 billion (actually over $1 trillion when interest is included modestly) terms.

The Dow Jones Industrial index is a forward indicator of the mind of business and economic health. Often it overreacts to the actions around itself on any given day. And there will be more than enough pundits and economists declaring just that, if the major news media that has invested so much into President Obama bothers to investigate that much. But economists don’t work the stock market. Stock brokers and business owners do. And without the degrees, charts, and visions of Santa delivering a healthy economy they have concluded, since January 2nd, 2009 that things are going to only get worse.

So I ask you, who do you believe? Congress and the Executive Administration that routinely fail to pay their taxes, write bad checks, organize pay-offs, and lie about the job they were elected to do (Barney Frank)? Or the guy who signs your check, watches the economy in action every day at every tick on the Dow, and the guy that will give either of those 2 enough money to expand their business and employ more people?

I was a stockbroker, so my opinion is biased. But you can look at the facts and the carefully stated words for yourself. Just don’t look at the value of your 401K while you do so.

How much do you deserve? Who gets to decide?

Here is a problem. And it’s a big one. Who deserves the right to decide how much money you should get paid?

What if I told you that the Government has decided that as an employee (not of the Government, but of private business) you deserve no more than $25,000. It doesn’t matter that you went to college, got a degree, and owe tens of thousands of dollars. It doesn’t matter that prior to Government intervention you were making $125,000. Because the Government thinks that $25,000 is enough to live on. Would you be happy?

What if you own a business? Maybe a grocery store, or a restaurant. Or perhaps a dentist office, or a car garage. And the Government said that even though you work 60 or more hours a week, every week, usually without vacation, you only deserve to be paid $75,000 or less? It doesn’t matter that the business makes enough to pay you $200,000. It doesn’t matter how hard you work, or what the business is worth. Because they think that is more than enough. Because executive pay should be capped.

Do you see the problem?

I think most people can accept that the Government has no right to say how much money they make if they don’t work for the Government. That’s why we have private business. That’s why our economy is the greatest in the world – even in a downturn.

But the upcoming rules to be stated by President Obama say exactly that. Keep an ear open though, as the exact wording will be far more pleasant to hear. It will be packaged under the guise of reigning in the “runaway excesses of the financial industry and Wall street greed.” And it will be phrased as a means of ensuring executives are responsible with the bailout money President Obama plans to give them.

Now I have long said that an executive, a CEO, does not deserve a huge pay package (in excess of millions) for work where a company is in trouble or worse off than when they started. That’s not their job. And if a CEO is fired for poor performance, thus endangering the health of the company, they definitely don’t deserve a golden parachute. Conversely though, if they improve the company, thus ensuring growth and job stability, they certainly do deserve a huge payout bonus. But that is for the shareholders of the company to determine, not the Government and not arbitrarily.

It can be said, and with good reason, that any company that has accepted Government money has the Government as a shareholder (at least). And I can accept that. Except the proposed limits are not just for companies that receive Government funds.

“The administration will also propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance.
According to the official, the proposals include:

• Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.
• Requiring nonbinding "say on pay" resolutions — that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.
• A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.”

I have a problem with the Government telling me how much money I deserve to make for the work I do. And if you think the Government will not do this, recall that there is no Department, Agency, or Division of the Government I can name in the last 40 years that has gotten smaller or given up power they held. Can you?

Once Government has established the ability to determine the wages of any private group of citizens, it can do it for all citizens. And it will always be stated as something for the good of the nation. Until it’s not.

There is a name for this kind of system, its called communism. And the nations that have tried to live with that system have all had it fail. Unless you have lived where people line up for their ration of meat – the best of which has been siphoned off for black market sales – you may not see the problem with all of this. But I have, and I was beyond greatful that I was an American and could afford the black market goods.

“long-term overhaul of executive compensation” – listen to that. What exactly does it mean? Who does it apply to? Who will determine what is executive compensation?

That is not a free market. That is not a capitalist strategy. That is not why I own my company and work hard long hours. I don’t bust my arse in my own company because I hope one day to have the Government act as my employer and tell me how much I can make with absolute authority.

This is a problem. And I don’t care how it’s sugar-coated, it’s a bitter pill to try to make me swallow. And how long will it be before the Government decides to tell us where to spend our money? Or what to do with our own time? It’s a slippery slope and we are riding down the path like a bat out of hell.

What "Change" amounts to in Washington D.C.

I find it so interesting that some are surprised by the problems in the Obama Administration. It’s not like anyone should have expected the Democrats to be or act better.

To start with the top, President Obama pledged that his Administration would remove the “old politics” and change how Washington does business. It seems the business was given to the public.

Rather than bring in new people to Washington, President Obama has run through the Clinton Administration, and a few popular old Democrats for nearly every position. Nearly each appointment has been a staunch liberal Party-line Democrat.

Case in point is the big pick, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She ran a campaign grounded in polispeak flip-flops, race baiting, gender cards, and division in the Democratic Party. For this she was rewarded with a position of massive power, repayment of millions in debt from the campaign, and the ability to position herself for a future run at the Presidency.

And let us not forget that Secretary of State Clinton is known for her Whitewater profits, inexperience in world politics (though she borrowed from her husband’s efforts liberally), ability to dodge invisible bullets, association with a fugitive from the law (Norman Hsu) – including her acceptance and reluctance to return $1 million in campaign funds once he was caught, and most recently her inflexibility to remove any question of impartiality regarding international multi-million dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation.

There is of course the joy of Vice President Biden. He is known for his ability to insult minorities, including insulting references to President Obama (when he was Senator Obama) at the drop of a hat. VP Biden is known as well for his multiple political gaffes, and strong liberal leanings. Not to mention is total disdain for the experience of President Obama, as well as his prediction of an impending catastrophic event due solely to the election of President Obama. But he is the bright side of the Administration and Congress.

Then we have Tom Daschle. He is slightly better than Chris Dodd in that his ability to benefit from his position was only temporary. By that I mean he has finally paid $128,000 owed to the IRS. And since he was so kind as to finally make this payment, the IRS decided not to ask him for the $50,000 penalty you and I would normally have been hit with. Never mind the fact that he waited 4 years (from 2005) to make the payment, and that the only foreseeable reason he made the payment was to get this major position. And don’t mind the fact that Daschle is a hypocrite

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.”

But why should he worry. Since Treasury Secretary Geithner, who runs the IRS, didn’t find it important to pay his taxes either (that took 8 years). At least not in any timely manner. And without the penalty as well.

Keep that in mind when you get your tax bill. Because I guarantee you won’t get the same treatment. But who are you? Just a voter.

But I mentioned Chris Dodd. He runs the Senate Banking Committee. You know the part of Congress that completely ignored every sign of the mortgage crisis. The people who along with Representative Barney Frank in the House Banking Committee looked America in the eyes and said everything was under control and anyone saying otherwise was a liar – right before several banks and AIG had meltdowns. But Chris Dodd is special. Or at least his mortgage company thought so.

It seems that his mortgages, that he promised were the same as everyone else, have turned out to be sweetheart deals. I guess everyone else means every Democrat that holds a political office. And it only took him 6 months or so to reveal this information – that he promised to provide the public 5 months ago. Compared to the others he is lightning fast. It only took until after the election to mention the truth.

Ah, but don’t forget House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The woman behind a stimulus bill that fails to provide stimulus. Unless you think pet projects like honey bees will somehow help those 162,962 people that were laid off in January alone, get new jobs. .html But don’t worry, because she too has her own sweetheart deal in the works. Not that it’s secret, but you should recall that Speaker Pelosi holds a large stock position in a green energy company, one of the areas the stimulus plan will be dedicating money to for research to find a way, over the next 5 years or more, to create anything.

Considering all these problems, issues, bald-faced lies, broken promises, and abuses of power, is anyone really surprised? Because the American people were promised change. And if this isn’t a change (for the worse in my opinion) then can you imagine once all these people really get the ball rolling? Aren’t you excited?

And if you doubt a word of what I have said, just check Google and see the news that the media is keeping quiet. Because it would look really bad if the news media held President Obama and the Democrats accountable after having sold their souls (and committing active self-admitted bias) to get that feeling down their legs.

And some are surprised? Just wait, we have 3 years and 11 months to go.

Obama Stimulus Package: an urgent need to do nothing

The more I hear about the Obama stimulus package, the less I like it. Yet it is the most “urgent” piece of legislation that his Administration is working on passing, immediately. Just as the $800 billion for the credit crisis had to be immediate.

And just as with the mortgage/credit bailout quick action without forethought provides for mistakes, waste and a few political amendments that no one will notice until after the fact.

As of right now, the Obama stimulus package is being referred to by President Obama as

“All we can do, those of us in Washington, is help create a favorable climate in which workers can prosper, businesses can thrive, and our economy can grow," Obama said. "And that's exactly what I intend to achieve - soon.”

Now think about this for a moment. The stimulus package is intended to avert a depression and reverse the recessionary trend currently happening. This is important to remember as I continue.

25% of the Obama stimulus package will not take effect until after 2 years have passed. That’s not my opinion, that’s from the White House itself. Thus the package is not immediate.

The package includes several hundred billion dollars for environmental studies. That also takes an extended amount of time, and provides nothing to the economy. But it does make the global warming crowd feel all warm and fuzzy.

The package requires that:

“Much of the spending would be for items such as health care, jobless benefits, food stamps and other such programs.”

Jobless benefits do not create jobs, and therefore does not help the economy. Food stamps do not create jobs and therefore does not help the economy. Healthcare could create jobs, except that the money allocated for that is to supplement the coverage and cost for those that have lost a job. Again it does not create anything.

And a huge portion of the stimulus package is targeted to give the public money. But that’s not exactly true. First you have to make less than $75,000 (or $150,000 for those filing joint). Second you must receive a paycheck. Third you will receive a discount on the federal taxes you pay – up to the first $8150 of your annual salary.

That last one is important. It means that if you get paid once a month (as an example), and in month 2 or 3 your income exceeds $8150 you will no longer get the benefit. Of course the entire benefit only amounts to about $120 a month anyway. Which should be plenty of money to go out and buy hoards of new items. Which would create new jobs.

Except that $120 a month isn’t much at all. For most major purchases, like a new TV that will work with the HD changeover, cost far more than a mere $500 (which would take 4 months to save up to and is not immediate). Add to that equation the fact that the average American has $6000 in debt, and with tens of thousands of jobs being lost so far in this month alone most are more concerned with lowering debt as opposed to buying a new shiny something to compete with the Jones’ next door.

So again this is not creating jobs.

But there is some portion of the funds that will go to small businesses. Roughly $2.7 billion dollars. Or in other words, next to nothing. And larger businesses will get money as well, if they can prove they can create jobs through Government approved calculations that have been proven to be next to impossible to qualify for.

But do not fear. The Government will be funding jobs via public works. Like in the time of FDR. Except that just like then, if nothing is being done to create private sector jobs, which the above proves it is not, when the Government stops the funding there are no jobs for people to apply for.

In essence, this is a political polispeak attempt to look good. The long term effects are negligible at best. The quiet side provisions are definitely not popular. In virtually every aspect it fails to create jobs, or spur consumer confidence. It fails at its immediate and definitive purpose, stimulus.

If this passes, Democrats in Congress and President Obama will look good. For a while. And Republicans will have yet another thing that will be blamed on them. And when the built in failure of the plan becomes apparent, Republicans will be the first people selected to blame for their disagreement.

What is needed is a stimulus plan. Not the word stimulus, not the projection of sending the public checks that will need to be paid back at some point in the future. Least of all is the need for the Government to take care of everyone as if they were children, which this package does in abundance.

I don’t want the Government to give me what it thinks I need. I want the ability to earn enough to make my own choice about what I actually need, and if I do well what I want.

All politicians should reject the Obama stimulus package. Democrats won’t. Most Republicans will. And it will get passed because there are more than enough Democrats who seek political gain over their constituents well being.

Not the definition of change most voters expected, but it is change indeed.

The 100 day countdown has as many questions

Well I read something that was quite interesting the other day. It dealt with the questions of what we can expect from an Obama Administration. The article by Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris titled What we don't know about Obama points to some interesting thoughts.

So far we know that President Obama has ordered the detainee prison in Guantanamo Bay closed. He expects this to take one year, though the Bush Administration has spent at least 2 years seeking to move some 60 of the worst prisoners to any nation that will not just release them to Al Quida. This is part of his promised acts as a peace maker. That is in conflict with his plans for Afghanistan.

President Obama believes we can win in Afghanistan. He has stated that is the center of the war on terror. And that is where he wants to focus, then end our fight. But to do so is anything but being a peacemaker.

“Most military experts think a decisive win in Afghanistan — as opposed to a muddle-through strategy leading to a gradual withdrawal —will involve a major surge in troops and a willingness to tolerate high costs and high casualties.“

And speaking of war, there is Iraq. Which President Obama continues to move towards running from. The country is finally in some semblance of stability after our prolonged presence and several gaffs of the Bush Administration.

“But this remains an extremely volatile region that could erupt in new bloodshed. Will Obama still cling to a speedy pull-out if it means the country could implode?”

With anti-war hawks like Hillary Clinton in his Cabinet, and a majority of the Democratic Party looking for nothing less than absolute withdrawl what would President Obama do in that situation? Especially as he focuses our troops in Afghanistan thus escalating that conflict? Especially as military history states that a war involving multiple fronts usually end up with loss.

Also along these lines is the question of torture and interrogation. The first part of which is what to do with the detainees in Gitmo as I stated above. But moving forward is what to do about any future suspects we might encounter. They will not be able to be detained. Thus we must presume they will be interrogated in the field. But under what rules?

No matter what some may feel about the use of questionable techniques or outright torture there is one absolute truth. America gained needed information that has led to no more attacks on American soil. With many of the prior interrogation techniques now banned will we still be able to gain that information? Since we will not have detention areas to hold these suspects will we have an opportunity to learn the information that would prevent another major attack?

Then there is the question of the economy. An issue I have long has major problems with. The proposals made by the Obama Administration demand and create multi-trillion dollar deficits, which President Obama has said cannot be maintained long-term. But there is nothing in the proposals that would indicate that the deficits would be paid off in the next 4 years, or even 10.

The public is now becoming used to, and insistent on stimulus checks. If you ask the average American right now they believe that another stimulus check will be in the mail – which has been directly refuted by President Obama. And the poorer the person the more they are anxious for that check.

But that is a mere $850 billion dollars. If President Obama also goes forward with his healthcare plans, his expanded Government, and the declared spending (bailouts) for the economy the imbalance will be at least $1.6 – $2.1 trillion dollars when it’s all said and done (this year alone).

If President Obama plans to keep his budget in massive record deficit only for the short term then he must raise taxes sharply - for ALL Americans, cut entitlements drastically – including the new healthcare and social security, and reduce the military’s budget even as we have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And a major deficit will still exist, with no guarantee that the economy will have improved.

And then there is a hot-button issue for me. Darfur. A subject that most politicians have avoided on all levels. America has yet to pass the laws sitting in Congress for 4 years that would prevent corporate or individual investment in the Sudan (Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act). This is similar to the laws passed that prevented funding Apartheid in the 1980’s. Yet even in the Democrat-led 110th Congress nothing has been done.

Will President Obama step up and use his extreme approval ratings to draw national attention to this genocide that has been ongoing for some 7 yeas now? Will he place financial bans, or even use military force to help save millions of non-American lives? Does his role as peacemaker end at the shores of America or does it include other parts of the world that have dire need and no strategic benefit to our nation?

What will President Obama do? No matter what he chooses he will piss off some part of America. But is he strong enough to piss off his main support – far-left liberals? They gave him the money to win. They rallied him over Clinton. They want some of the most extreme (I believe socialistic) changes to the Government. And if President Obama is to be an effective President for all of America, the far-left must be pissed off often and on major issues at times.

But that would bode poorly for his approval rating and chances at re-election. And virtually all the plans of the Obama Administration seem to require 2 terms to come to the proposed fruition. Is President Obama willing to risk that second term for a more balanced Government?

All serious issues, all serious repercussions. And all without any assurance of what will happen. Many wanted change, and in some form or another they are about to get it whether they like the outcome or not.

Media, President Obama, and questions from Logan Calder

This is a response I made to a comment recieved from Logan Calder on my post America is still America. I felt this deserved to be heard on it own as well.

Logan,

I love involved comments that reflect when someone has read what I have written. Thank you. I will try to respond as clearly as I can.

The question of why so many, including myself, have said “I never thought I would see a black president” is pretty easy. It comes from the fact that for some 400 years African Americans have been in fact or in effect second class citizens. For those that are old enough, basically my mothers generation or older, to have lived in segregation the thought of a Black President is hard to conceive of when you can recall water fountains being segregated. For those in my generation, roughly 45 – 30, the memory of blatant discrimination provides the same disconnect. Perhaps the only generation that is oblivious to blatant daily discrimination would be those 20 and under now, though it does happen via television and movies everyday as I have often mentioned.

“Does this suggest that the country is not as racist as they believe??, or do you think that it is simply dramatic behavior?? or something else??.”

No the country is definitely as racist as it has always been in my life. The means by which that racism is enacted or portrayed has changed though.

The 200 incidents of nooses reported in 2007, an act that was unreported prior or since the Jena 6 issue hit the major news media – after 6 months of having been on-going, is one example. The singular consistency of police across the nation to overkill unarmed African American men, ONLY, and the fact that national news media avoids reporting this while relatively trivial news (Anna Nicole Smith's death, the Casey Anthony case, ect.) is followed every day for a year is another example.

But it must be said that President Obama was elected by a majority of all Americans. So there is a change in acceptance. I know of many people that voted for Obama because of retribution against President Bush (which is stupid since he wasn’t running). Others voted against the Republican ticket and the ridiculous adage that Democrats used to great effect – “a third term of President Bush”. And more than a few people were swept away with the thoughts of “change” (which is unspecific and dumb), an end to the Iraq and possibly Afghanistan wars, and/or receiving another stimulus check (which will not happen according to comments on the next stimulus package which I believe will fail miserably).

But for all the reasons Obama was elected there was a clear and steady voice of about 10% of the nation that vocally stated they would not vote for a Black President. If that is an extreme, which I think it is, then on the sliding scale to those that would vote for a Black President we must cross a percentage of Americans that might vote for a Black President under certain circumstances only, and those that would vote for a Black man because they felt peer and/or media pressure to do so, as well as those that did not vote for President Obama but were unwilling to be vocal about it. Put together that is a scary but illustrative number of Americans.

Still there is no question that the media made this election incredibly dramatic. The news media swooned over President Obama back in October of 2007 and never stopped to this point. It was so bad that the media had no choice but to admit their partisan manipulation of information about the election – though they waited until after the election to admit it.

So there are a number of factors that came together to get President Obama elected. Blind Democratic voting blocks, historical passion, a mood of change in the public attitude on key issues, an unpopular war, economic disappointments, a less eloquent and less attractive opponent, the age and health factors, news media bias, and the introduction of the internet as a new medium of great power. All of this combined led to President Obama’s win.

“1. Most white people that I talk to voted for Obama and felt, purely from a political standpoint that he was the best candidate.”

Most people in America right now expect another stimulus check from the Government, though it has been directly and repeatedly stated that it won’t happen. Most people hear and believe what they want to based on 30 second soundbites they watch on television. They infer policy from polispeak, and invariably get it wrong.

There are dozens of reasons to question President Obama’s politics and economic views. One of the most unrecognized is the fact that every economic policy President Obama advocates has been proven to not work in the past. These are not new economic plans, and they have never worked in the past – why do so many believe it will work in the future?

One great indicator of what business believes is the stock market. It is a forward indicator of the economy. While moved dramatically by emotion it is always based in the expectations of success or failure of economic plans.

Thus a positive expectation will cause a factual 10 point move to be a 100 point move, and conversely for negative indicators. The market has lost some 12% as President Obama has been revealing more of his economic intentions. That does not indicate the best political standpoint to me.

“2. I heard several times that “they would never let him win”…”they” obviously refers to white people. And since he won, and received massive support by whites, does this play into the original thought of racial paranoia??.”

Yes the “they” refers to Whites. And yes that is based on the legal, social, and media disparities that exist in America at this moment as well as the last several hundred years.

But again I refer back to what I have said before. The win by President Obama is a culmination of multiple factors. While race was one of those factors, the economy, the wars, and other immediate policies were of far more concern than race. Which is a positive in some respects, and very sad in others. Still there is a bit of paranoia in that as well, just as the scale reflects the racism of some in this nation.

“3. Is there a silent feeling of “wow, I didnt expect that…now what do we do” among blacks that are most likely to use race as an excuse for failure?”

Failure for a President has nothing to do with race. Which is an unfair statement because we have never before had the option to prove that point. But I believe that if President Obama is successful his race has nothing to do with that. Yet considering the nature of the media to emphasize negative racial stereotypes (when the media bothers to cover non-Whites at all) a failure of President Obama will likely be framed in Black and White. That is just an honest observation.

But I believe the nation as a whole is just now starting to ask the question that Democrats avoided throughout the Presidential campaign, ‘what does change mean?’

From a Black perspective, speaking for myself based on my views and those I have heard, there is no expectation of failure for President Obama in the Black community. And were he to fail, that is not about his race but his politics. Yet I again state, the media is more likely to create an issue of race motivating blame than any American. And once the media does so, the nation will likely be engulfed by the issue. Which ultimately helps the media make more money.

“4. Last, do you think that a large portion of blacks are silent about, but resent, the fact that Obama is half white. And could be just as easily (and fairly) called white…if the thought of calling him white is offensive, then you would be a racist, in my opinion.”

I personally could care less. There are millions of African Americans that are mixed with some other race or nationality. In fact most Americans whose family goes back to 1865 or earlier (as mine does) have a mixture of White and Black blood. It may not be spoken about, since much of that mixture from that time was the direct result of White slave owners committing rape – but not always as seems the case with Thomas Jeffesron, a rarity indeed. So President Obama’s heritage is about as important as that of President Bill Clinton, President Bush, President Roosevelt, President Lincoln, President Washington, and so on.

At the same time I must correct a thought you have. Race has always been a factor of what people see in this country. If you have dark skin you are presumed to be Black. You could be Hispanic, African, Arabic, Indian, and so on but you will be seen as Black at least initially. Just as every person from any Southeast Asian nation is considered generally from the same nation. It is an attitude that America has maintained since the days of slavery.

Any non-White is generally regarded as a lump of people of the same color. And because there is a visible difference there is a discrimination placed upon them, historically. Thus President Obama would and will never be called White, though he is a 50/50 mix. Because when those that care about such things look at him they see a Black man.

But I doubt many in the Black community care about his mixture. Because most African Americans can trace a fair amount of White ancestors to their family. There are always extreme views of course, but that is the exception and not the rule. But again the key here is the media.

The media has the unique ability to focus on the issues they wish, in a manner that emphasizes what they wish to convey. Right now the Casey Anthony case in Florida has been on national news programs for about a year. To my knowledge only Bill O’Reilly (for 4 minutes) and ABC News (for 30 seconds) have covered the Oscar Grant case. Exponentially less time has been focused on the 2 other Black men killed by police on New Year’s Day, while unarmed, one also on the ground and the other shot in the back 12 times.

Of just these 4 items of news, which do you believe has a greater impact on the society, and make a more clear statement about law enforcement? What is more worthy of coverage; the abuse of power by police on a seemingly national level or the question of what one deranged mother might have done to her own child that has no effect on anyone else in the nation?

Thus I expect that if the question of how African Americans feel about President Obama’s lineage comes up, it will be due to the media. The answer will reflect what they wish to promote. It will likely have nothing to do with what the majority of African Americans believe. Though it will be promoted as if the Black community was speaking in a consensus. Something that I have not seen since the Civil Rights Movement, other than the election of President Obama.

I hope I have covered all your questions. If not please do let me know.

America is still America

Well it has to be said by someone. I know the hate mail will flow.

I understand, and am gleeful, about the history being made as President Obama becomes the first Black man that is President of the United States. It is a moment that I never expected in my lifetime.

That said, I have to wonder and comment on the way the media and many people are treating this as if the world has instantly changed. It is as if suddenly every wrong in America has been wiped away. Or so the media would like many to believe.

I recall a recent television commercial on BET that I caught as I was flipping channels. It had a little girl trying to watch the inauguration, but was far too short to see over the crowd. Then Dr. Martin Luther King comes and lifts up the girl so she can watch the Oath of Office. The commercial ends with the words, The Dream Achieved.

Hogwash. The television commercial is inspirational, but the message is false. President Obama is not the fulfillment of the dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King, and to suggest as such belittles what he strived for. The Civil Rights Movement was not about just gaining political stature, or a title. It was about the understanding of the fundamental rights of equality that Government and society needs to recognize.

Yes, President Obama is one aspect of that realization. But that does not mean America has reached a point of equality. Oscar Grant was murdered after Obama was elected. Millions of African Americans are drop-outs, and single parents. The pay rates of African Americans still lags that of White peers. The stereotypes of African Americans being criminals and/or violent still permeates music, television and movies (when we have the chance to be seen) by and large. Drugs are still allowed to enter Black and poor communities. The dream is not achieved.

President Obama is just one man. He has entered one position, powerful as it is. And it is worthy of acclaim and celebration. But we should not distract ourselves from the reality that exists before, during and after this moment.

Racism and prejudice still exists in America. It is part of the legal system at every level. It still unbalances the opportunities African Americans (and all other 'minorities') experience in this nation.

10% of this nation vocally stated that they would not accept a non-White president. That is huge. Who knows how many were unwilling to make that same statement publicly. Obviously not enough to prevent President Obama's election, but far more than enough to put me at unease.

There is still only 1 African American in the Senate, a mere handful in the House of Representatives. There are few Governors and Mayors that are African American, or just non-White. There are far less than 1% of major CEO's that are 'minorities'. Even in the far-left, politically highly liberal, halls and studios of Hollywood there is barely more than a scattering of non-Whites in front of or behind the cameras.

It took 14 days for the ex-cop who murdered Oscar Grant in cold blood to be arrested. Protestors of the inaction of police in Oakland were arrested the day of protests. National news media coverage of the murder spoke only to the riots and lawsuit the murder provoked. And virtually nothing was said of other acts of police abuse in the nation at the start of the new year.





The dream has not been achieved, yet.

I am exuberant about President Obama's accomplishment. But the world has not changed this second. Racism has not died. Prejudice has not faded away. The ills and wrongs of this nation have not been wiped clean. The slate is still filled.

Rejoice today because it is a day worthy of celebration. But let us not be distracted from the truth that is daily life. President Obama may change many things, but it won't be tomorrow. He has become a symbol, but action still needs to be taken. Millions will remember this day, but it is only one day.

President Obama is not THE answer. He is not THE only change. He is one part of a huge goal that was hoped for by millions of Americans, including Dr. Martin Luther King. But he is not the end of the road nor the ultimate answer to the challenges before us. The dream is still a dream. And we must still strive to make it a reality.

But thankfully we are one step and one day closer to that reality. Let's just not lose focus.

Billions for foreclosure, billions wasted

So now President Obama seems to be interested in providing up to $100 billion for those in foreclosure or about to be. It's a really great gesture. It will surely help his approval rating. And it will help guarantee that he receives the full $850 billion he has wanted for the Democrat proposed stimulus plan.

But I am opposed to this. Not because I don't want people to keep their homes. But because this is a terrible idea.

First there are the homeowners who are not in foreclosure. Those of us that are doing everything we can to maintain our homes are at a disadvantage. We get nothing from the proposed stimulus except the $120 a month that has been stated. Which is little to nothing compared to the cost of a mortgage, and raising a family, while trying to save enough money to ensure that if we lose our jobs we have something as a cushion.

In fact, it seems almost beneficial to allow your home to go into foreclosure these days. The Government is so busy trying to ensure you cannot lose your home that they are basically encouraging people to do so. You can negotiate a lower interest rate, defer payments, extend the life of a mortgage, remove interest, and soon there will be payments from the Government to subsidize your home. Given all that, why the hell is it worth struggling to stay out of foreclosure?

Second, in spending money on the foreclosures it is that much less money spent on the economy. Given I think the stimulus plan is as much of a waste as the Bush stimulus plan, basically a political look good tool or polispeak for the masses. But if spending money is the plan to turn the economy around, why dilute that plan?

In effect the average American will be paying back, at some point in the future via taxes, the money they receive + the money given to homes that are not their own + money given to businesses that made bad business decisions. And that is just the looking forward money (and does not include his new spending for new Government programs). The Government has already obligated us to pay back previous money received + several bank bailouts (which did nothing to improve the stock market and retirement accounts) + auto industry money + bailing out an insurance giant. All while inflation is creeping higher.

And none of the money going to any business or institution has any guarantee of repayment. Nor if there were repayment, any way planned of how that money would be assessed. The money could be used to fund pet politician projects (like ACORN was initially set to receive) or some other Government inspired spending spree. We don't know.

Which says nothing of the fact that the Government has no idea how the money will be spent, or where it is spent. Billions are unaccounted for at this moment, and the Obama Adminsitration has stated it intends to add tens of billions more into the pot with little better knowledge than before. Unless you believe that Congress got a lot smarter since the elections in November. The majority of politicians that were there before are still there. Like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who couldn't figure out what was happening in the economy until after the problems hit the news. And they head financial oversight committees, still. Think they are any smarter or more adept than 3 months ago?

But again on the foreclosures. I have enough trouble paying my mortgage, my household expenses, taxes, and preparing for higher corporate taxes. It's hard enough to do all that in an economy that is just flat, and this is anything but. Now the Obama Administration believes I should add on someone else's house? Which I will never get a benefit from.

That's a hard sell to me. Probably why I did not vote for President Obama. These are no surprises. But they are as bad a set of decisions as I expected them to be. This is not going to help the economy, though I expect it to temporarily help the approval ratings of Congress (which needs it badly).

I don't entirely blame President Obama though. This entire stimulus plan was the idea of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She has been fighting for this for months, increasing the amount each month as she went along. Pelosi has had the distinction of being the worst Speaker of the House, with a Congress of the lowest approval rating, that accomplished the least things, at a higher cost, than I believe any other Congress has done in 111 sessions. That's like betting on the horse that went lame and was pulled from the race. Obama made the bet so he gets that blame, but Pelosi made the horse lame and that's on her all the way.

Spending tens of billions on foreclosures sounds nice, but that's all it is. Polispeak. It is almost entirely probable that it will have no effect except a long-term negative. In fact it may speed up the downward trend President Obama was elected to fix. But it's going to happen, so be prepared.

Politics - the ultimate career

Ah the joy of politics. There is nothing like it. Only in politics can a person give a promise to millions of people, publicly, and then get a promotion when they fail miserably to follow thru. Only in politics can promises on the campaign trail be reversed 180 degrees once elected. Only in politics can a politician accept money that most would call influencing and still become one of the most powerful people in the free world.

It's called polispeak, at least by me. The act of saying and doing anything necessary to bolster a politicians power base and rise in the ranks while deluding the public. And there are plenty of politicians in office right now that are masters of this.

Barney Frank is one such politician. He adeptly changed his position on the mortgage crisis several times, matching the prevailing wind of public sentiment well enough to be untouched politically. How else could a politician say on tape that real problems don't exist and that he is on top of all the factors involved, then have all those problems explode in his face, and yet still maintain his elected position. Polispeak. Just blame everyone else and ignore what you have said before.

And another favorite is Senator Clinton. She has now become Secretary of State. Which is a joke. She has fought and won the ability to receive, via the William J. Clinton Foundation, tens of millions in donations from foreign Governments while she holds this post. She previously failed on promises to her Upstate New York constituents, promising to bring in 200,000 jobs and losing over 30,000 instead. She has reversed her position on illegal immigration so fast that only video of her conversation makes it possible to see how fast she polispoke (3 positions in 2 minutes at the same Primary debate, and in the same question). And she negotiated herself out of millions in debt (from her presidency run) and into a promotion while maintaining her bid for a future run at the Presidency and ignoring the racial comments she made in the campaign.

But let us not forget the polispeak of President Obama. He successful convinced the nation that he is not a far-left liberal, though his voting record is explicit in making that clear. He reversed his position on gay marriage. He avoided the weight of his political past, particularly his direct and close association with an admitted unrepentant terrorist, with a mere sentence. He has altered his positions somewhat on Iraq, the economy, and several other issues - even before getting sworn in. And his initial approval rating looks to be through the roof.

Politics is a unique field. And for those adept at polispeak it is the only place to be. It's even better than being a lawyer. Amazing.

Surprise! We are still in a bear market.

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

"A jump in unemployment sent stocks sharply lower Friday as investors feared that Americans won't soon deviate from their tightened budgets."

That means that someone thought consumers would go back to spending money, or realistically increasing debt, because the new year started? Or they thought that the $120 a month less in taxes (for only 4 months) President Obama has proposed was going to spur new home purchases? At the same time that nearly every industry in the nation is slashing jobs?

It must be great in the world that some of these economists live in.

We have lost the most jobs in this nation since 1945. That's at the end of WWII, when we scaled back from the massive military supply we needed for the war. And I believe more people had more savings and less debt than today - even adjusting for inflation. And the Government had none of the debt we have today, or will soon have even more of if Congress and President Obama get to spend as they plan on doing.

How could anyone look at the 2nd half of 2008 and not expect consumer spending to continue downwards. To expect the stock market to continue in the bear market that it's been in for months now. I mean what did they expect, President Obama would smile and the world would just step up and buy stocks?

President Obama is a Liberal Democrat. He has said from day one that he will increase the deficit, spending more money than ever before. He has made it explicitly clear that he intends to get even more money from fewer sources, business and the higher incomes. What exactly counts as higher income keeps changing, and getting smaller. And business really loves to have to pay more money as sales shrink.

Let's not forget that with the mismanagement of the Fed and the Treasury (neither of which is President Obama's fault - given) we have wasted billions of bailout dollars, have a line of industries waiting for their turn at the free money ATM called Government, and inflation is the one word no one wants to talk about. And inflation will be the one thing that really kicks everyone's ass.

Of course President Obama will say that the sky is falling tomorrow if he doesn't get to give away all our money. That's polispeak, meaning that he wants to look good at trying something that can't work so he has some political clout before it all falls apart. Then he can point backwards in time and blame everything that fails in his plan on President Bush. Politics as usual.

Of course these "old politics", that President Obama promised to banish, are very good at keeping political clout but horrendous for low wage earners and small business. The stock market knows this. That's why its a bear market. And as we approach the inauguration, I expect even more selling. I mean why have an investment when the taxes on it will cost more than you expect to make in the next 2 or 5 years.

As a stockbroker I learned to look for capitulation in the market. That emotional point when people just give up. That's when smart money jumps in and buys. Except that the emotional selling all happened in September and October. Since the election smart money is selling. And that means things are really going to get worse.

Until there is a reason to buy stocks, the market will continue to slowly slide down. Never in just a straight line, but trend down it will. The Democrat-led Congress will authorize spending in new programs that will not help any one get a job or start a business. The President will come up with plans on how the Government can take care of everyone, while being in every pocket deeper than before. And $1.2 trillion dollars in debt will look like a target to strive for in coming years.

I've said it before and I will again, a Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid Congress with the most Liberal Democratic President in decades equates to double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, rock bottom consumer confidence, and business bankruptcies all not seen since the Carter Adminsitration - if we are lucky to have it that good.

So who is surprised? Not me.