Auto Bailout Alternative

The auto bailout. Ugh. Though I didn't care for the size, scope and unaccountability of the financial sector bailout, in principal I agreed with it, because a financial institution failure would have undermined the very infrastructure of our economy. I disagree with the current auto industry bailout, and I am none too pleased with the Bush administration's offering up of $17.4 billion to the Big Three to pull them out of their woes.

...because no amount of government money will pull them out of their woes. Alternatively, an organized, carefully executed Chapter 11 bankruptcy would address far more of the industry's fundamental problems. Aside from the facts that 1) the Big Three aren't making a product that people want to buy, and 2) the UAW costs have put the Big Three in an uncompetitive situation, the fundamental problem of the U.S. auto industry is that consumers just aren't buying cars.

THAT is what must be addressed. So here's my practical solution with Bush's "Christmas gift" of $17.4 billion. Still give them that money (and so much more), but in a different form. Effective immediately, the U.S. government will give a $3,000 downpayment for every new American car purchased. Consumers must otherwise qualify for a standard auto loan, and each household would be limited to just one purchase, and the $3,000 "gift" is not taxable. This would drive sales of 5.8 million American cars. Now THAT is a stimulus, and puts sales revenue in to the Big Three, not government handouts.

Am I crazy, or might just such a plan work??? At least in the short-term; the 1) and 2) items I list above must still be addressed (but the current $17.4 billion doesn't address that, either).

Twilight

OK, then... I'll be the first to admit that I'm a middle-aged male whom actually ENJOYED reading the Twilight novels. My wife read them and really loved them, and so to figure out what the deal was, I read all four of them. They're not my typical genre (I'm more of a Vince Flynn, John Grisham, the future-author-John-Goodale type of genre), but for what they were, they were OK, and "not unpleasant." And I could certainly understand the whole draw between Edward and Bella, yada yada yada.

So it wasn't necessarily with a whole lot of expectation that I went to see the movie (with my wife, of course). And ya' know what??? It was pretty good. I can say that I enjoyed it. I thought Edward and Bella were both way too serious, but overall, even the casting wasn't that bad.

But Twilight will certainly be a candidate for the Worst Technology Casting Oscar Award. Hear me out...

So here Bella is. An uncoordinated, intelligent "smartsy" type. The type of person we called while I was growing up, a "smack." She's not creative, nor artsy, nor athletic, nor none of those things. She's just a geek. So... why is it when you see her in the movie e-mailing her mother, she's using a Mac??? By Apple's own advertisements, the geeks of the world use PCs; NOT MACS!!! And in Forks, Washington, so close to Redmond, WA campus of Microsoft??? I'm sure the Redmondians would have thrown a fit!

Nope... never would have happened. That computer should have been cast as a PC. Shame on the production studio; the movie lost all realism to me by that casting choice! :-)

I Agree with Liberals

There's one thing in which liberals always try to pick a fight with me on: spending. It's the solution on which we differ. Liberals always complain to me that the Bush administration has spent like drunken sailors. Well... liberals all need to brush up on their civics lessons, because the President doesn't spend a dime. Nonetheless, I'll concede the point that Bush has been all too supportive of the Republican Congress during his first six years, in spending far too much money. Point conceded.

The reality is that Bush's apparently evil tax cuts have driven quarter-after-quarter of economic growth, and like Reagan did in the 1980s, he has actually INCREASED federal treasury revenues. Those revenues are at all-time highs, and the revenue side of the equation is not what has caused today's astronomical deficit: SPENDING is the problem. But again I'll further agree: Bush has been far to supportive of a Congress with seemingly endless purse strings.

Yet how do the liberals propose we fix this? We elect liberals who promise to spend more money!!! All while promising to raise taxes in a sputtering economy, something "The Chosen One" has even admitted would be a bad idea. Oh but wait a minute... please allow me to clarify: none of these liberals have come out and actually said, "I promise to spend more money." Or... wait a minute, while most elected to Congress have never actually said that, Obama DID (and a majority of the people still voted for him??? - go figure!!!).

But as the electorate should have done with Obama but didn't: let's examine the record. When Democrats took over the Congress two years ago, they promised that they would only embark on "Pay as You Go" spending, or "paygo" for short; they ran on that ticket! Oh goody; makes sense!!! I'm sure glad they've done that. Or... have they??? Oh come on, even Obamazombies should be able to answer this one: NO, they have not done that. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, they have not. In fact, they've broken their promise on 12 separate occasions, increasing new deficit spending by a whopping $398 billion!!! And the outrage over "Bush's spending" from the press and liberals (but I repeat myself) is where??? That's right: nowhere to be discovered!!!

But yet here we go again. The last time we had both a Democrat President and a Democrat-controlled Congress, it was Bill Clinton. I happen to remember that Clinton strolled in to office and shouted, "We need an economic stimulus package!!!" (because Bush's tax increases stalled our economy - d'oh just study history folks!!!). He proposed $90 billion in stimulus spending, and the Democrat-controlled Congress aid, "That's irresponsible!!!" and killed it. And Clinton never thereafter had a single one of his proposed budgets approved by Congress (two of those eight years Congress were even controlled by his own party!).

But even today's Democrats are different from Clinton-era Democrats. Even before Obama comes in to office, the Democrat-controlled Congress is begging for billions and billions of stimulus spending.

So to all of my liberal friends who complain about spending over the last eight years? You ain't seen NOTHIN' yet!!!

I quote the article below:

As Congress gears up to pass another spending "stimulus" bill, there's one political silver lining: Democrats are being forced to abandon the pretense of fiscal conservatism known as "pay as you go" budgeting.

Late last week the leader of the House Blue Dog Coalition, Tennessee Democrat Jim Cooper, announced that with Barack Obama about to enter the White House, "I'm not sure the old rules are relevant anymore." Why not? Because, Mr. Cooper said, "It would be unfair to the new President to put him in a budget straitjacket."

Democrats ran on "paygo" in 2006, promising to offset any new spending increases or tax cuts with comparable tax increases or spending cuts. Once in charge on Capitol Hill they quickly made exceptions, waiving paygo no fewer than 12 times to accommodate some $398 billion in new deficit spending -- not that the press corps bothered to notice. That didn't stop Majority Leader Steny Hoyer from announcing in May that "We're absolutely committed to paygo. Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] is committed to paygo. I'm very committed to paygo. Our caucus is committed to paygo."

Yet now Mr. Cooper is delivering official last rites, as the Washington spending machinery powers up in earnest. Paygo was always a big con designed not to reduce spending but to stop tax cuts. It was invented to stop the GOP Congress and then a Republican President, but it is inconvenient when Democrats run the show. With the recession available as an excuse for just about anything, get ready for the first $1 trillion federal budget deficit. And don't expect any howling from the Blue Dogs.

Minnesota Recount

Oh come on. This whole recount thing and "voter intent" is utterly ridiculous. If you're too stupid, lazy or unprepared to follow simple instructions while voting, your vote should not be counted. Tuesday when I voted, I walked in with a pre-marked ballot (I had studied and knew how I wanted to vote), and it took me probably less than five minutes to bubble in my two-page ballot. And had I made a mistake when bubbling, I could have asked for another ballot. It's really not difficult, people. If you're too stupid, lazy or unprepared to vote accurately, then it shouldn't be somebody else's job to figure out what your "intent" was.

Ending My Job Search

Oh well... at least after the election today, I can end my job search. Obama will cover my healthcare, and according to the ObamaZombie in this video embedded below, I will have my mortgage and my gas covered, as well. I can live on tax redistribution from the "wealthy," and if and when I feel like working again, Obama can give me a job. After all, he's promised millions of them. What a great day!!! I'm so happy to now live in the U.S.S.A, the United Socialist States of America.

Dangers of Socialism

One of the most powerful speeches warning against socialism that I have ever heard!!!

My Apology to the Nation

80+ hour work weeks. Half my time in Asia, away from my family. Severe lack of sleep. Continually fighting a cold or some other bug. Holding a serious revenue target in Asia so my U.S. company can continue to employ dozens. Stress out the wazoo.

But man... I apologize, folks. I'm apparently not working hard enough. Nor am I "patriotic" enough. I hereby solemnly commit under an Obama administration to work harder, be more patriotic, and spread the wealth (yeah... right!!!) around.

What messed up economic thinking!!! How can ANYBODY support Obamanomics???!!!

The best economic greaser is capitalism; socialism has left nothing but failed states littered throughout history.

For a very good preview of what we have in store, see this Wall Street Journal article.

McCain Supporter Beaten; Liberals and Media Yawn

A little more than a week ago, a liberal friend of mine sent me an e-mail, all excited that some McCain supporter yelled out at a rally, "Kill him!" - referring to Obama. My liberal friend couldn't believe such an outrage. Nor could the media. They jumped on this story like white on rice (uh oh... I mentioned "white" and will certainly be branded a racist now). As it turns out, the story was completely false. Nevermind that, liberals still talk about it like it actually happened.

But then a true outrage DOES occur (DA's complaint shown herein), with a McCain supporter being savagely beaten by an Obama supporter. Do I hear from my liberal friend(s) - any of them? Do I hear this in the mainstream media? No... together, they all collectively yawn.

Now... I'm not going to do as a liberal would do, and extend such evil to the party/movement as a whole, but I will ask this: Where is your rush to recognize and call out evil when evil exists, and cry out against it? And I actually WILL lay this charge against your party leadership in general: The liberal leadership's inability to recognize and deal with true evil absolutely frightens me.

Biden's Fantasy World

Joe Biden lives in a complete fantasy world, tells HUGE whopper lies in the VP debate, and gets a COMPLETE FREE PASS by the Obama-adoring press. If this had come from the other ticket, it would have been an above-the-fold front-page story on EVERY newspaper in the country. But this story, below, gets stuck deep in the editorial pages of the October 6th Wall Street Journal.

Not even mentioned in this article, either, is Biden's completely bogus Iraq versus Afghanistan costs. He flatly declared that we spend more in Iraq each month then we spent in seven years in Afghanistan. Really??? The FACT is that we have spent $700 billion in Afghanistan in seven years, and we spend $10 billion a month in Iraq. Real math, not fictional Biden math, shows that it would take 70 months in Iraq to equal what we have spent in Afghanistan. An error of 70:1 proportions.

But don't let those pesky little facts get in the way. For if you did, blind Obama-devotees, you would realize that this Democrat ticket should have NO place in our foreign policy!!!

Biden's Fantasy World
Sarah Palin may not know as much about the world, but at least most of what she knows is true.

In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?

Start with Lebanon, where Mr. Biden asserted that "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.' Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel."

The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also didn't do that. The Lebanese ousted Syria's military in 2005. As for NATO, Messrs. Biden and Obama may have proposed sending alliance troops in, but if they did that was also a fantasy. The U.S. has had all it can handle trying to convince NATO countries to deploy to Afghanistan.

Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a "sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq could work in Afghanistan.

Then there's the Senator's astonishing claim that Mr. Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad" without preconditions. Yet Mr. Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the National Press Club: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no."

Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked." Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.

Closer to home, the Delaware blarney stone also invited Americans to join him at "Katie's restaurant" in Wilmington to witness middle-class struggles. Just one problem: Katie's closed in the 1980s. The mistake is more than a memory lapse because it exposes how phony is Mr. Biden's attempt to pose for this campaign as Lunchbucket Joe.

We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true.

Chihuahua - Huh???

Here's a light-hearted rant today...

I was SHOCKED to read that the new movie, "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" took top billing at the box office this weekend, pulling in nearly $30 million. Based on previews I've seen, outside of Al Gore's "A Convenient Lie," this looks like THE MOST STUPID MOVIE OF ALL TIME!!!

Wow... what has become of today's movie-viewing public???!!!

The Current Economic Crisis - Whose Fault?

I am really quite sick and tired of the blame game on who/what caused the current financial crisis in the United States (and extending to the rest of the world). So what am I going to do? I'm going to contribute to the blame game.

...but not really. I'm doing it a bit differently, because truthfully, I don't believe ANYBODY (at least from what I read about) has ever pointed the finger at the right source. And I really am tired of both parties trying to blame the other (although this blame game is played almost exclusively by the Democrats; watching CNN on this today in a hospital waiting room made me want to throw up - perhaps they would have admitted me, too).

First of all, THIS IS NOT POLITICAL!!! Let me be clear about that. This is not the fault of politics, nor politicians, nor political policies.

Although, that argument could effectively be made. For example, according to an October 3, 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal,

Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income.

So... the argument could effectively be made that it WAS political policies that led to the current crisis, but I'm not going to go there. Instead, I'm going to point the finger right at the very thing that caused our Congress to act in such a manner:

FINANCIAL CONSUMERS!!! That's right, when pointing fingers at who/what caused the current fiscal crisis, I want us ALL (including myself) to look in the mirror. It was US, we the people, we who consumed financial products, who drove these policies, and demanded such things. We wanted more home than we could afford. We wanted even high risk borrowers to be able to afford homes. And then we wanted to fill that more-home-than-we-could afford "estate" with high definition televisions, the fanciest furniture, and so on. Oh... and don't forget the Lexus in the driveway; we had to have that, too!

So we demanded more home than we could afford, and more things than we could pay cash for. And we demanded the financial instruments to meet these "needs."

All the market did was provide what we were demanding. So it wasn't the greed of Wall Street, the greed of bankers, the greed of politicians... it was CONSUMER GREED.

Until we as consumers recognize it and do something about it, no amount of "bailout" will ever permanently fix this problem. Neither party has the courage to admit that it's OUR fault we're in this mess, so I will.

Welcome to My Rants

"Now... I don't mean to get off on a rant here........"

Yes, I quote the famous Dennis Miller above. I've got my own share of rants, so I decided to create this blog to express those rants. We'll see what this ends up being, but I have a feeling that much of it will be about politics, since it would seem that's the area I most like to rant about.

And keep in mind that, also paraphrasing Dennis Miller, these are just my opinions; I could be wrong.

(but not likely)