Merry...

Christmas is Thursday; and every year my wife and I have both sides of the family in for a big Christmas dinner and gift exchange. Each year, I cook up a standing rib roast for the family - about an 8 1/2 pounder does the job.
According to Alton Brown, 3 to 4 days of dry aging makes it better, so I went out this morning to buy the roast. Because the thermometer read 5 degrees, I bundled up as I headed out to my butcher. I rebundled against the now 4 degree temperature as I left my butcher with 70 dollars worth of roast. A $70 roast that cost me $59 last year.
From my reading, one reason for the extra cost of the roast would be the fact that feeding beef is more expensive now. Why would that be? That would be because they're growing less feed in favor of growing corn, switchgrass, etc. for biofuels.
You know biofuels. That's the fuel made from what used to be our food so that we can be environmentally friendly and not use foreign oil. You know foreign oil. That's the stuff we burn because we have to be environmentally friendly and can't harvest the energy sources we have here in the US - but digress. You know biofuels, those fuels made from what used to be our food that are only even remotely cost effective because of government subsidies. You know government subsidies. Those would be part of the cause of that growing number at the top of the page.
Of course, the upside is that we're fighting global warming. You know global warming. That would be the phenomenon that folks like Al Gore are telling us we cause. The phenomenon that folks like Al Gore are telling us is proven by the world's temperatures falling over the last ten years and the fact that 2008 is on its way to being one of the coldest on record.
Which brings us full-circle back to me braving the exceptionally frigid temperatures to buy my more expensive roast. It just makes me want to wish the global warming fanatics a Merry Christmas. Oh wait... they could be offended by the word Christmas. So, in order to be politically correct, I'll just say merry frickin' winter.

Jennifer Granholm

According to an article in the Detroit Free Press Jennifer Granholm wants to stay in Michigan and will not pursue a position in the Obama Administration. This is yet another good sign for Obama and the US.
The fact that she was in the running was quite disconcerting, and still is, because she obviously has a voice within the Obama Administration. However, if she stays in Michigan, maybe she won't be able to inflict the same damage on the entire US as easily as she did on her state.
Gov. Granholm's state has the second-highest unemployment rate in the country and the fifth-highest taxes, and she somehow thinks that if they raise the taxes, more jobs will be created. Michigan has the fifth-highest rate of foreclosure starts and the lowest rate of attracting new residents. Over the past decade, while the rest of the US economy was growing, Michigan's was declining with high rates of layoffs and taxes, and the state economy has lost about 300,000 jobs on Granholm's watch.
During a recent debate with Mit Romney on Meet the Press, Granholm tried to make the point that the reason the Big 3 can't compete is because foreign countries pay for healthcare and the US puts that on business. An interesting point, but moot being that the Big 3 can't compete with the cars being made by foreign companies inside the United States. I may not know everything about how the car industry works, but I'm pretty sure that Japan isn't subsidizing healthcare for workers in the United States, even if they do work for a Japanese company.
Then, on the radio this week, I heard her saying that she doesn't understand why the banks got a huge bailout with no strings and the car makers "have to come on bended knee." Again, Granholm proved that she just doesn't get it. How can she not look and see what happened with the banking bailout? She didn't see that the money was not used as intended? Did she not see the AIG execs taking spa weekends, etc.? How is it that she can't learn the what the rest of us did from the first round of bailouts? We don't want to give out another pile of money without a good plan in place.
No, Granholm staying in Michigan (or better yet, going back to Canada) is what's best for the country -- unless Obama is going to appoint a Secretary of What Not to Do.

Political Idiots

It never ceases to amaze me how people can let their political view cloud their judgement.

Let's begin with the Indianapolis police officer who put an "Impeach Obama" sticker on his squad car. You can check out the story here. How is this wrong? Let me count the ways. How about starting with this guy's ignorance of how our government system works. At this point, Obama isn't even eligible for impeachment, and for there to be an impeachment, he has to have done something illegal. To date, I can't figure out how he could have had the time. Then, come on, there's a time and place for everything, and on the job on a police cruiser is neither the time nor the place.

Now to the more severe. Arson to the Wasilla church where Sarah Palin attends. So far, nobody has said that it was politically motivated, but it does look pretty suspicious. I hope that it winds up not being a political statement. Assuming that it is, I have to file this with the those guys who were plotting to assassinate Obama -- under "What have we become?" Come on folks, we're better than this. Can't we have political disagreement and debate without it coming to this?

Then again, given the Prop 8 demonstrations we saw in California just recently, maybe we can't.

There goes our dough

Round and round they go, here come the bailouts, there goes our dough. It appears that a $15 billion dollar loan will go to the Big 3 Automakers. As Congress acts to spend money we don't have, I have to wonder how much that National Debt number at the top of the page will accelerate, and I worry for the country that we will leave behind for my daughter.

On the upside, the money will be a loan. On the downside, I've looked over what has been released of the plans so far and I'm concerned that they won't be able to pay it back. Quite simply, I'm not seeing a lot of change in how things are done in Detroit.

The UAW claims to be making concessions, but are they really? Read what has been reported of those "concessions" very carefully. They aren't giving anything up. They're only offering deferments. So, the money will still be owed, it just won't be owed right now. The legacy costs will still be there.

This has less to do with Detroit than Washington, but the cafe standards that helped drive the automakers into this mess will still be there and from what I can gather, Washington will be adding onto them.

Then, there's the appointment of the new Car-Czar to oversee the recovery of Detroit. This certainly seems like a good idea, given the performance of the Big 3, they could use some oversight. Unfortunately, if one is appointed, Washington won't appoint someone who can do the job well, such as Mitt Romney, instead it will go to some political hack who will try to make things work within the parameters of the Washington elite. These would be the same folks that brought us things like the the new Capitol Visitors Center which only ran a scant $550 million over budget. For those of you keeping score that's a scant 7.74 times the original budget of $71 million.

Then, of course, there's the oversight from the likes of Chris Dodd who is asking for GM's CEO to step down. I would be willing to see him step down for his incompetence if Dodd would step down for his role in forcing the whole subprime mortgage mess (if he could take the other folks involved like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, etc. with him, that would be great too.)

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Detroit be successful. I live in Toledo, home of one of Chrysler's crown jewel plants. If the Big 3 rebound, it will certainly help me, but I fear that Washington will run this with the same rousing success that they've run everything else and at best, the ensuing crash and economic destruction will be put off until my daughter and/or grandkids will get stuck with the bill.

Pearl Harbor Day

It's Sunday, December 7, the 67th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and I always take a moment today to remember the folks who went through that, and one in particular.

His name is Russell McCurdy, he's from Huntington, IN and he was a Marine on the USS Arizona, docked in Pearl Harbor on that fateful morning. I had the privilege of meeting him several years ago at a Veterans' Day parade, and I will never forget him.

He told a great story about being in the crow's nest on the ship during the attack and how he saw the planes coming in and subsequently saw a bomb fall into one of the smoke stacks on the ship. When the order was given to abandon ship, he jumped into the water and swam ashore on a private beach behind some houses. Because of the design of the houses, the only way to get from the beach to the street was to go through the back door of one of the houses and out the front. As he went into one of the houses, he passed through the kitchen. The occupants of the house were gone, having left due to the attack. In their haste to leave, the homeowners had left a pot of water boiling on the stove. He noticed that it was boiling over, and stopped to shut off the stove and removed the pot from the heat. He said it was the strangest thing and he didn't know why in the midst of a military attack he thought to do that, but he did.

Sadly, Russell died last year. As we lose more and more members of that greatest generation, we lose more and more of those great stories and memories of the World Wars. It is heartening, however, to see that we have finally gotten a monument to those veterans in Washington. I'm also going to use this space to applaud the Honor Flight effort to get as many of those special people to see their monument before they leave us. Please honor these brave veterans by going to their site and donating if you can.

So, today in particular, but whenever possible, we should take a moment to remember and if possible, thank those who fought and are fighting to protect the freedoms that we enjoy.

Running in circles

There was a Burma Shave saying that went, "If you're worried, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." That seems to be what is going on this week as the Big Three Automakers and the UAW head to Washington in search of cash. Lots of running in circles, screaming and shouting.

Any time that anyone goes running around, telling me the sky is falling and telling me there is no time to wait, they need my money now, I get suspicious. It seems that every time I watch a news report, I hear someone telling me that without cash from Washington right now, this minute, no time to waste, the Big 3 will go bankrupt and the sky will fall. The sky will fall argument was a falacy when the conservatives said it about Obama becoming President and it doesn't work now.

I will, however call it a half-truth. It's probably true that without Washington's money, the Big 3 are headed for Chapter 11. That's the half that's true. The untrue part is when they portray Chapter 11 as the plants will immediately shut down, nobody will make cars, all those workers will be without jobs and the suppliers will have to shut down, and the total will be 3 or 4 million people out of work. That is just not true.

First of all, reports say that Ford is only asking for a line of credit that they hope not to use. If they are even able to consider not using the bailout money as an option, they will probably survive a bankruptcy if necessary.

Here in Toledo, one of the stations had a UAW rep on who said that if there isn't a factory, there can't be concessions. True enough, but again, even if they go to Chapter 11, there will still be a plant. Again, two examples from right here in Toledo are DANA Corporation and Owens Corning Insulation. Both declared bankruptcy in recent years, both continued to produce their products and both eventually emerged from bankruptcy. I'm not saying people didn't lose their jobs and there weren't hard times, but the fact was that they didn't go to liquidation, they went to reorganization and that's exactly what the Big 3 would do if they didn't get this government money.

Even if they go to full liquidation (which they won't) someone would buy up the assets and produce cars. Why? Because people still need cars. The auto industry is still a viable industry. It's just suffering from legacy costs from some bad deals made with the UAW, as well as mismanagement by overpaid executives.

Ford's CEO says he'll work 2009 for a dollar. Good start, but that puts him at a $7.5 million average for 08 and 09. I'd like to see some more. I'd like to see that out of the other execs.

The UAW is talking about givebacks on contributions to VEBA and that working man's golden parachute called the JOBS Bank, which allows workers who are laid off and not working at all to collect 95% of their salary. Again, a good start, if it happens (which I'll believe when I see). I'd also like to see a few more concessions to bring the legacy costs down.

The problems that the Big 3 are experiencing stem from a combination of poor planning by management, a management that was willing to give away the store to the unions, and a union that was willing to bleed them dry.

Bankruptcy, not a loan or bailout money, is the way that these businesses will shed their problems and become viable, competitive businesses.

My Dream Team

I've been watching over the last few days as Obama names more of his cabinet. I'm still processing some of it, but my initial reaction is that given the pool of people a Democrat is likely to draw from, I think he could have done worse. With that in mind, I've been coming up with my own dream team for 2012. Here's what I have so far....

2012
Jindal - Palin

I thought Palin was a great choice for VP, and I still do. Maybe she'll do some things between now and 2012 to bolster her Presidential resume, but for now I'd have to go with Jindal. He's done so much to clean up the screwed up mess that Louisiana has become, I think he'd be great.

Now to fill in the cabinet positions. They aren't all there yet, but here's what I have so far...

The Cabinet

State ..... ????
Treasury ...... Steve Forbes (I like the flat tax, and if you team him up with Romney on Budet, you'll have growth like we've never seen)
Defense ...... General David Petraeus (Look at what he did in Iraq)
Attorney General ..... Rudy Giuliani (He cleaned up crime in New York. Need we say more?)
Interior ..... Ted Nugent (Land and wildlife management? Right up this guy's alley)
Agriculture..... Nugent (As part of my streamlined government plan, this is getting rolled into interior)
Labor ..... ????
Health and Human Services ..... ????
HUD ...... ????
Transportation ..... ????
Energy .... T. Boone Pickens (An oilman who wants to pursue wind farms. He's got that all of the above attitude we need)
Education ..... ?????
Veterans Affairs ..... Oliver North. (He's already doing tv shows honoring vets. He's make a good advocate)
Homeland Security ..... Sheriff Joe Arpaio (There would be a fence, and our side would have a catapult to send illegal aliens back over it - in pink jumpsuits stamped return to sender)

Cabinet-level administrative offices

Chief of Staff .... Newt Gingrich (He did a lot to organize people and keep them on track during the Contract with America era)
EPA ....Ted Nugent (This one's going into the Interior Dept. as part of my government streamlining idea. Hey, a hunter's going to want to protect the environment.)
Management and Budget .... Mitt Romney (If anyone can straighten things out, he can)
Drug Control Policy ..... ????
Trade Represntative ..... Walter Williams (Like the others in the economic posts, he just gets it.)

And just to throw a curve ball at the media, Ann Coulter will be the White House Press Secretary. She'll let them know how stupid they really are.

That's it so far. Updates will follow.

National(ized) Economy

Take a look at the national debt counter spinning away at the top of the page. At the time of this writing, it's spinning away at 10 trillion dollars. Now play that against the money committed to bailouts so far - $3.9 trillion. That's right, the government has committed nearly half the value of the national debt to bailouts, and for those of you keeping score, that's about 6.75 times the cost of the Iraq war to date. That's just the financial system bailouts. Let's not forget that coming up in about a week, the big three automakers will be back in Washington with their hands out. Then it's also been rumored that the television networks could be asking for assistance.

These bailouts seem to be breeding requests for more bailouts. When I took logic class in college, I was taught that a slippery slope argument is fundamentally flawed. That may be, but I see a lot of ice forming on the hill we're standing at the top of, and it's a long slide down.

What makes this scarier is that President-Elect Obama has said in multiple speeches that because of the economy situation, we can't worry about the condition of the national debt right now. To the contrary, now is the perfect time to be worrying about the national debt. We have an administration coming in combined with a congress who want to enact billions and billions of dollars of social programs on top of the trillions of dollars of bailout money. Currently, the numbers in the thousands are spinning upward. If we don't watch what we're doing, the millions could start moving at that speed. As the debt spins upward, the government prints more money, and as the government prints more money, our dollar goes down in value.

Then let's add that the folks in congress are talking about the government having ownership interest in the bailed out companies. I hope it's not just me who is frightened by the idea of the government having ownership interest in the banking system, major industries and the media.

In the book, The Forgotten Man, we are reminded that when things aren't going well and the the government is doing a poor job, the solution isn't necessarily more government. Let's hope the folks in Washington remember this.

Two union tales

People wonder why it is that Detroit is in trouble. I had a friend send me a link to a detnews.com story on a Brazilian Ford assembly plant. Watch that video here. When you finish with that, check out this story by WDIV in Detroit. I've posted this in my blog before, but when you view the two back to back, it brings things into clearer focus.
This is the best illustration of why I think we should not be bailing out the Big Three. Quite simply, as long as the UAW has a stranglehold over the Detroit Automakers, the only way to make them competitive is with protectionist tarriffs, which history shows have never, ever, worked.

I was reading some of the forums on Fox News when I came across one that asked if Obama will be able to fix the economy. One of the early posts was that he wouldn't be able to because Bush and the Republicans made too much of a mess of it.

It just amazes me how uninformed people can be. I'm not going to pretend that Bush and the Republicans were pure as the driven snow because that wouldn't be true, but to act like they were solely responsible for this mess is plain ignorant. To act like the Democrats weren't the main driving force behind the genesis of this problem is ignorant.

Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and even Barack Obama himself were the ones who pushed for all these subprime loans. The motivation was that everyone should be able to own a house. When Republicans like John McCain started calling for more oversight, they were shouted down with charges of racism. Obama was even listed personally on the lawsuit against Citicorp (who, as of today is getting even more bailout funds) to force them to make more subprime loans. As late as July and August, Frank and Dodd were making speeches in Congress to tell everyone that Fannie and Freddie were in fine shape and there was no more need for oversight.

A simple proof is to look at the hearings that have been held so far regarding this financial crash. Honestly, if the Democrats, who have been running congress for two years, could find even one Republican to hang these problems on, they would have had him pilloried on the steps of Capitol Hill long ago.

And yet, with the major media outlets committing what can only be described as journalistic malpractice, the people remain uninformed. Check out the video below, it's part of a documentary done on how Obama got elected. People waiting to vote for Obama who haven't so much as heard of people like Dodd, Frank, Pelosi and Reed, much less know what their involvement in the financial crash is.

Change as usual?

All through the campaign, I heard as President-elect Obama preached that he will bring change to Washington. Yet, now that he's won the election, I along with a number of Democrats that I know are wondering, "Where's the change?"
As the appointments come down from on the mount, it would appear that this will be the third term of the Clinton administration. One of the things that Bush 43 was criticized for when he took office was that he went through and appointed members of 41's administration. Now, here is Obama with the majority of his appointments coming from the Clinton administration. How is that change?
Now, another appointment indicates yet another lack of the promised change. Yesterday, the Politico reports that the White House Office of Political Affairs will be manned by Patrick Gaspard, a New Yorker and longtime labor operative. This appointment obviously means that Obama will not close the office which he and the Democrats, as well as many Republicans derided through the campaign. John McCain even vowed to close the office if he were elected. By keeping the office, Obama takes yet another step toward business as usual in Washington, which during the election, he dubbed "the perpetual campaign."
So, as I watch the transition work its way through and the appointments of Washington insiders come down, I have to ask, being that it doesn't appear that Obama is moving away from Washington politics as usual, what was the change we needed?

My Bipartisan Moment

It's the coldest November that I can remember in quite awhile here in Northwest Ohio. Today I think I found out why. It would seem that Hell has frozen over. How do I know? I know because today, November 20, 2008, I agreed with something Nancy Pelosi said. It's just unthinkable!!

Today, Nancy Pelosi said that before they receive any bailout money, the Big 3 need to show a plan of how they're going to navigate their way out of this mess. I saw that on t.v. and actually found myself saying "Damn right, Nancy!" After watching how the banking bailout went, I'm glad to see that maybe the government is giving some thought to how things are going to work before they go pouring money down a hole.

Wednesday, the execs of the Big Three showed up in Washington to make their case for being bailed out-- via private jets. Apparently they went to the same school of being bailed out as the execs of AIG. I'm sure that they get the gravity of the situation, but it would be a much better appearance if we saw some effort like flying commercial rather than taking their private jets. To me it would show that they're willing to move toward getting rid of the old habits that got them into this mess.

Dont' get me wrong. I still think the Big 3 should not get a bailout. I think the best thing for them is to go for bankruptcy protection and reorganize so that they can come out stronger.

Unfortunately, it seems that this bailout is going to happen one way or another. So, before I see the government thowing my money down the hole that is the Big 3 automakers, I'd like to see a few things...

1) This is a loan. It is only a loan and it will be paid back. With interest. The government will be the lender and will not be a shareholder in any of the companies.

2) Bonuses, golden parachutes, and huge salaries are out the window. If you're steering the ship when it runs aground, you don't get a big bonus for your performance.

3) The execs show their plan to get out of this, including how they're going to sell off foreign properties, and work the assets (such as selling off unnecessary things like private jets) that they have to raise some of their own bailout funds, as well as what changes they're going to make in their lines to be more competitive.

4) When the Big 3 execs come back to Washington in December to make their case, they fly commercial and Ron Gettelfinger comes with them. He gets to testify about the UAW's role in this mess and tell what concessions they are going to make to help turn this around. If he thinks that the UAW doesn't have a part in this and doesn't need to be a part of the changes, he first needs to read my earlier blog about the cost of labor for the Big 3 and look the investigative piece that WDIV in Detroit did on how two of the UAW leaders are ripping off the companies for thousands of hours of overtime. You can check it out here.

Given that the Democrats owe so much to the unions, I'm sure that they'll never make that demand. I'm also sure that they won't allow the bankruptcy that so needs to happen. Quite simply, if they do, the UAW will lose a large chunk of the Working Man's Golden Parachute that is their deal with the Big 3.

So, while it probably won't happen yet this year, this bailout will probably happen, and it won't happen with concessions from the UAW. Which means that the companies will not be able achieve a competitive hourly cost, which will doom this bailout to eventual failure.

Working man's golden parachute

The management of the Big 3 Automakers will be in Washington today with their hands out looking for their bailout. I hear calls for the CEOs to take a hit in all of this and I can't agree more. The people who were driving the boat when it sank don't deserve bonuses, etc., but the government can't be blindly handing out money to everyone who has decided that they're too big to fail. Especially in this case, because it appears that one of the major root problems behind this is not going to be addressed. Namely, the Working Man's Golden Parachute that is the UAW contract.

Ron Gettelfinger says that the UAW membership will not make any more concessions in this try for a bailout. Yet, according to Ford's annual report it has paid at an average $70.51 an hour in wages, pension, and health care costs for hourly workers last year. General Motors' annual reports show that its labor costs average reaches $73.26 an hour while Chrysler Group reaches an average labor cost of $73.86. Contrast that with the $43 per hour that Honda, Toyota and Nissan are reportedly paying and you see what I mean.

Don't get me wrong, there are a number of things in this to list as causes. Mismanagement by the company execs, sure. So, they should be giving up the giant salaries, big bonuses and golden parachutes. Certainly, the fact that the Big 3 have continued to make huge, gas-guzzling cars despite the constantly rising fuel prices. I understand that there are market forces to be considered here. I understand the need to make the SUV's that the people want to buy, but much of this fuel situation was visible on the horizon. They should have at least been planning, so I think some direction for them as to more fuel-efficient cars is in order if they're going to use my money.

The problem is that even if the Big 3 implement lower salaries for CEO's and start making more fuel efficient cars, the root problem that their labor cost is nearly twice that of their competitors, they're still not going to be competitive and we'll just be throwing our money down a hole.

Internet President?

I was watching today as the folks on television were talking about Obama's address and that all of his addresses are going to be available on YouTube.

They were laughing about the idea that there would be nothing for them to do because he would just do YouTube videos and there would be no daily press briefings. Personally, that's not a bad idea, at least in part. It would be nice to see all of the speeches and press briefings in their entirety without the filter of the national media.

However, as they were pointing out on television, part of the job of the media is to ask questions and monitor how the President is doing and question what he does. The problem here is that we've already seen that media outlets such as Fox News and the papers who endorsed McCain in the election don't get called on in press conferences. So, the only ones who will get to ask questions will be the ones who have already proven their loyalty to Obama.

I hope he does put everything on YouTube because it may be the only way we get an accurate picture of what he's saying and doing.

Auto Bailout

I sit and listen as the people (Dodd, Frank, Pelosi...) who brought us the collapse of the financial industry through their demands for subprime loans and loose standards at Freddie and Fannie weigh in on the possiblity of bailing out the big three automakers and it's just unbelievable. Where does it all end? What is out there that's not too big to fail?

The biggest problem that I can see with this is that the Democrats want to put all kinds of strings on the bailout of the automakers. First are the standards on what kind of cars they can make. I understand the need for cleaner and greener cars, but the fact is that all the restrictions that have been put on the automakers here are the reason that they're having problems. The automakers are doing much better overseas where they have fewer restrictions.

Second, they want to put a lot of restrictions on the execs as far as salaries, golden parachutes, etc. This is a pretty good idea. The execs at AIG are a perfect example of how idiotic people who are being bailed out can be. This is also a good idea because these idiots are the ones who made the deals that are causing the major problems, which is linked to the third item.

The third item is a big problem for me. The Democrats who are pushing this are so very much in the pockets of the unions that they'll never push for dealing with the biggest problem the automakers face: the deals with the unions. Autoworkers for the big three make so significantly over what factoryworkers in other industries make that it's ridiculous. For that matter, they make much more than those working in the United States for foreign companies like Honda and Toyota. Then, at least here in Toledo, is the layoff pay. The factories are making non-competitive cars that are not selling. So they don't need to make more. So, they shut down and the workers get "laid off." The problem with a layoff as far as it doing anything for the finances of the automakers is that the person who is sitting at home not producing anything for the market gets paid 95% of his salary. That along with the Union pensions which, to me, rival a golden parachute. It's no surprise that the US automakers aren't competitive. And the Democrats will never want to address these problems in a bailout.

So, being that the Dems and the automakers will never address the union problems that are the primary cause of the need for a bailout, any money thrown at the automakers will be a complete waste.

Bailouts... the good... the bad and the ugly

The Good...

AP is reporting that Citicorp will be doing a moratorium on foreclosure and will be working with homeowners at risk of losing their homes. According to the story, Citi said it won't initiate a foreclosure or complete a foreclosure sale on any eligible borrower who seeks to stay in a home if it is the borrower's principal residence, the homeowner is working in good faith with Citi and has sufficient income to make affordable mortgage payments. They also said that they are working to expand that program to loans that they service but do not own. In additon, over the next six months they say they will be reaching out to homeowners who are not currently behind but who potentially could need assistance.



"Typically the lender loses the most money when a house goes into foreclosure," said Barry Zigas, director of housing policy at the Consumer Federation of America. "(The lender) takes some kind of loss that's usually much greater than what they sacrificed through some kind of workout."



The story also says that a number of other lenders are moving to do the same thing. You can read the entire story here.



I have two questions here...



1) If foreclosing actually loses the bank more money than working something out, why haven't they been doing this all along in hopes of avoiding a situation that I have to believe they saw on the horizon if they were paying attention.



2) Is anyone from the government (specifically the Obama folks) paying attention here? It looks like people may be working this out without the government getting involved (more than they are) perhaps we could see if these people can work it out without the government.

The Bad...

The big three automakers are currently in talks to get the government to delcare them too big to fail. I'm really not behind this for a couple of reasons.

First is that slippery slope argument. We've decided that all these banks are too big to fail. Now we're looking at the auto industry. What's next?

Second is that the Democrats are making noise that if the government does the bailout they want to start dictating the cars that they can build and how they can be built. If you look around the world, the US automakers are doing quite well in other countries, and that would be because we have more regulations on cars than they do. If the government wants to put even more restrictions out there, they'll just make more problems and at that point, we might as well just take a big pile of money and set it on fire.

Third is the conditions that brought about the problems that the big three are having. They've spent decades making cars that weren't fuel efficient in spite of the fact that fuel was going up and up in price. They should have been looking and planning. Add to it the combination of management and unions. For decades the auto industry has been run by management that was willing to give away the store and unions that were willing to kill the host. The unions didn't care about the automakers' ability to do business, they were just bleeding them for all they could; and the management was willing to give everything away. At this point I say, "You made your bed..."

The Ugly...

Albert Einstein (or Ben Franklin if you believe some arguments) is attributed with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think the executives at AIG could learn from this. After receiving not one but two big bailout payments and being caught on a retreat that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, they have once again been caught on tape at another resort retreat that people are saying once again cost a few hundred thousand. What amazes me is that AIG managed to become "too big to fail" with these idiots in charge. According to Fox News this morning, staff at the hotel were told not to talk about these people being from AIG and to keep it a secret. Honestly, in the era of Youtube and cell phones that shoot video, how could these morons think that this was going to stay a secret? As one of the people who is paying for this company to be bailed out, I have to say, I want my money back. I think the government needs to stop payment on those bailout checks until these idiots are put out and new leadership who gets the gravity of the situation is put in. They had their chance and now it's time for them to go.

Time for change

It would appear that Rep. Daniel Lungren is going to challenge House Minority Leader John Boehner for his leadership position. If Boehner is actually behind his party, he will do the right thing like Roy Blunt and step aside.

The thing that the GOP leadership needs to realize is that this election wasn't a referendum on Conservatism. A quick look at the number of state issues that went the way of conservatives should say that. What we should take away from the election is that it was a referendum on the direction that the Republican Party had taken.

I've been reading about Lungren, he's a moderate and much like Eric Cantor, who will replace Blunt, I'm not entirely sure that he is the man that the GOP needs in a leadership position at this point in history. However, if the last election has proven anything, it's that the current leadership should not remain in place, and certainly Lungren and Cantor could hardly do worse.

It's time for some fresh, new faces to lead the party out of the swamp that it's in. As I have said in my past blogs, there are a number of them out there who are rising to the top.

We've already seen some of the old guard do the right thing and get out of the way. Now it's time for Mr Boehner to do the same.

Change we need

I've spent the last couple of days off my blog because I've been trying to parse all the information that has been coming out since the election and trying to decide how I feel about all this.

Don't get me wrong. I'm disappointed. I'm certainly worried for the future. It seems that Mr. Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership, in spite of their word that they want to unite everyone and work toward bipartisanship, seem to be moving to the hard left. As I said in my last blog, it appears that Lieberman will be spanked for speaking out in favor of John McCain during the campaign. Also, the appointments for transitional teams do not bode well for future unity and bipartisanship -- that is unless you define bipartisan as the conservatives giving up all their beliefs and coming over to the liberal way of thinking.

Having said that, I'm happy. Why? Because I do see evidence that Obama will bring about the change we need. I doubt that it's the change he intended although it could be, since we don't really know what he actually meant when he said change, but I doubt it. The change I see is within the Republican party.

I actually see a future in the Republican party now. I fully think that the majority of the party's problem is that it had lost its way. Now I see the first light of a direction emerging, and it's a good one -- back to the conservative values that we need.

First of all, is the attempt to smear Sarah Palin. Unnamed staffers leaking stories about her and disparaging her to the media. Even CNN is saying that these stories are false. Read it here. It's fear. These people realize that they have lost and lost big. They realize that their plans have failed miserably and they're trying to put it off on one of the people who is the future of the party in an attempt to save their own skin. Thankfully people are seeing it for what it is and launching a campaign to thwart it. Michelle Malkin addresses Project Leper in detail.

I've heard interviews with defeated moderate Republican candidates who say that the problem has been that the party wasn't moderate enough. Really? You take a strategy the fell flat on its face and say that more of it would have been better?

The media are reporting the Palin smears and the words of the defeated Republicans like they're gospel. They know. Despite their best efforts, true conservatives are a threat to the leftism that they so love, and if we've learned from history, true conservatism wins.

You don't have to look far to see the future of the party. It's in Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and many others.

There's an energy out there. I know I'm part of it. I've always been a conservative like many people are religious. They go to church on holidays, say an occasional prayer and even talk like Christians. I've been the same way in my conservatism. I vote conservative, I'll even talk conservative sometimes, but I haven't really gotten out there to help. Until now. Now I'm going to get involved, I'm going to work on campaigns, I'll be donating, and I know I'm not the only one.

With the appointments he's made so far, it appears that Obama will make many of the same mistakes that Bill Clinton made in his first term that brought about the Contract With America and a turnover of congress. Combine that with the conservatives of the future and you have a recipe for success.

Hang on. The change we need is coming.

And so the uniting begins

I see by the news tickers that tomorrow is set for the meeting in which Harry Reid will spank Joe Lieberman for supporting McCain in the Presidential election.

Lieberman holds two chairmanships in the Democratic Conference, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. All of the major news outlets are reporting that Lieberman will most likely be stripped of at least his Homeland Security chair.

Last night, Reid said that the election is "not a mandate for a political party or an ideology." I think it would be pretty hypocritical for him to then punish someone for holding a different opinion on the election.

Lieberman has sided with the Dems on almost everything, except the war, and the election. Yet, a growing number of Democrats, while calling for unity and reaching across the aisle are also calling for Reid to punish Lieberman for his transgression in this race.

Both Obama and the congressional leadership have promised bipartisanship and unity. I don't know, maybe unity and bipartisanship are in the eyes of the beholder. If the Dems want to show that they are truly going to be their word and work to unite this country, this seems like a good place to start.

We're all Americans

As I sat last night, lamenting McCain's loss and being concerned for our future, a coworker who is a Democrat pointed out to me that "We're all Americans" and said that we need to come together and unite behind our new President.

I was struck by this statement as I listened to President-elect Obama deliver his victory speech, talking about reaching across the aisle and working together and saying that he wants to unite everyone. What struck me was that I had heard those themes in a victory speech before, but it was different this time.

It was four years ago. Not long after Peter Jennings, with tears welling up in his eyes, announced that George W. Bush had been reelected, and Bush was making a victory speech with very much those same themes of reaching across the aisle and the people uniting.

The difference was that nobody was calling anyone a crook, nobody was talking about how if he hadn't stolen the election four years ago, he wouldn't have even been running this year. There was no demonization of the VP and other staffers. There was none of that, save a couple of people running by across the street from us yelling "Go Obama! F--k McCain!"

There were discussions of tax and various other policies and how much would Obama actually be able to get done once in the White House. There were discussions of the possiblity of different outcomes had the Republicans put up a different candidate, but there were no cries for investigations. There was nobody saying that he's not the President that he shouldn't be allowed to take office. There was no talk of him being a Nazi. There was none of that.

There was, however, repeated talk of the fact that it's been a long election, it's over now, it's official, he's won, and that we're all Americans and, because of that, we need to put aside our differences and unite behind our new President.

I wonder how things would have gone had there been more talk like that from Democrats in 2000 and 2004.

The campaign that almost was

So, here we are on Monday morning before Election Day. The fat lady (sorry, caloricly enhanced) is off in the wings warming up her voice. The polls are not looking good for us at all. The polls have been starting to look better each day, unfortunately, I just don't think that there is enough time. The latest audio from Obama indicates that he would kill thousands of jobs and put the cost of turning on the lights in our homes out of sight. Give it a listen...



He did this interview in January. Where has this audio been all this time? I was listening to the radio this morning and one of the callers said that if this would have come out a couple of weeks earlier, Obama could not have carried Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other coal producing states. Last night, I was watching Hannity and Colmes, and they said the same thing.

This seems to be a theme about the McCain campaign for the last couple of weeks. The idea of "Why didn't we hear that a couple of weeks ago?" "Why hasn't the campaign been pounding this for the past couple of weeks?"

A couple of weeks ago, I was driving across Toledo and McCain was doing an interview with WSPD radio here in town. The host asked what he had to do to win and McCain went down a list of things that they needed to say and messages they needed to pound home. Throughout that list, I was pounding my steering wheel and screaming at my radio, "When you gonna start, JOHN?!!!!!"

We've gone back to "It's the economy, stupid," in this campaign. The facts are that the Democrats in Congress as well as Presidents Carter and Clinton and Barack Obama have their fingerprints all over the genesis of this economic crash. They were the ones who forced the subprime loans that started this thing. Presidents Carter and Clinton pushed it, Democrats in Congress including Pelosi, Dodd, and Frank forced it to be expanded in spite of protests from Republicans like John McCain. Even as late as July of this year, Barney Frank was saying that the system was fine and Fannie and Freddie were fine. Obama himself even brought a lawsuit against Citicorp to force Citibank to make more subprime loans. Yet, as late as last week I was at a speech by McCain and a speech by Palin and I heard nothing of this.

The Democratic run Congress has a 9 percent approval rating while Bush is holding an approval rating between 25 and 30. Yet you almost never heard the campaign putting Obama together with congressional leaders like the Democrats put McCain together with Bush.

A friend and I were talking late last week and I said that if a person set out to throw an election I don't think they could have done a better job than the McCain campaign did. Also from that conversation is a theory we have as to why you never really heard about the economy stuff. We're thinking that deep inside himself, McCain so dislikes Bush that he would rather leave Bush's legacy with the economic problems than put it where it goes, even if it means losing the election.

Here is my last plea to voters before the election...

Last night, I watched an economic analyst who said that neither candidate has a great economic policy at this point. Obama's policy, if not implemented just right, will cause a depression. McCain's policy, if not implemented just right, will cause runaway inflation. The potential problem comes in that there is a very real chance that Obama and the Democratic Congress will have nobody to slow them down. If McCain were to manage to pull off the miracle come from behind or the Republicans manage to stave off the Democratic supermajority in congress, we could probably keep this in check. Otherwise, there will be very little to slow down the oncoming depression.

I pray that tomorrow we manage to pull off something, be it stopping the Democratic supermajority, or putting a Republican in the White House, to keep the two party system alive, but I don't hold out much hope. Without one or the other, I see a very real dismantling of the things that made this country the greatest on earth.

Patriotism vs. Selfishness

The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away.
--John S. Coleman

There are these two quotes from Obama and Biden have me flummoxed. I just can't understand how paying more in taxes makes you patriotic and wanting to pay less taxes makes you selfish...





There are any number of people who would disagree with those two statements. First would be the US Court system. There are two cites I feel are on point here...

1."Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934) (Hand, J. Learned), aff'd 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266.

2."As to the astuteness of taxpayers in ordering their affairs so as to minimize taxes, we have said that 'the very meaning of a line in the law is that you intentionally may go as close to it as you can if you do not pass it.' Superior Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 280 U.S. 390, 395-396, [50 S.Ct. 169].This is so because 'nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands; taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions.'" Atlantic Coast Line v. Phillips, 332 U.S. 168, 172-173, 67 S.Ct. 1584, 1587 (1947) (Frankfurter, J.).

And as for selfishness, let's look at what Mr. Obama has given to charity in recent times...

2006: 6.1%
2005: 4.7%
2004: 1.2%
2003: 1.4%
2002: 0.4%
2001: 0.5%
2000: 0.9%

Only when he started running for office did he actually start donating anything. One can only assume that's because he figured it would look bad to be making no donations as a candidate.

And Mr. Biden is even worse. Since 1998, he has made $2,450,042 and yet he has made total charitable contributions of $3,690. For those of you without a calculator, that works out to just over one-tenth of one percent!

I think the reason they want to take people's money and give it to others is because they figure everyone is like them and won't give anything unless forced.

The fact is that their plan just won't work. No country has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity. Ever!

I think Winston Churchill said it best...

For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

Another thought on the Vice President

I had another thought regarding yesterday's blog about Palin being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. If Obama is elected, Joe Biden will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. If you look at what he has said over the campaign, he is an absolute gaffe machine. He can't even stay consistent with the ticket's policy. The only difference is that the liberals who run the major media outlets do not want to hurt the campaign of their chosen candidate give him a pass on everything.





And as we go into the election with the potential of giving over complete control to a group of people who want to make the biggest government in history, I give you the words of Milton Friedman...

"If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there will be a shortage of sand."

A plea to two friends

Before I start my plea to my friends, I have to point out the new additions to my blog. In the left column, you'll notice two counters the first is the countdown to the mid-term elections. I'm putting this up in a moment of weakness and doubt as to whether McCain can pull this election off. The second is the national debt counter. I have a feeling if this election goes badly for us conservatives, we're going to see that one pick up speed. Now on to the plea...

So, here is my plea to my friends...

My first friend has told me that she is probably going to vote for Obama, but she isn't sure. She has some doubt and says she may make a last minute decision to go a different way. She says her primary problem is Palin. She feels that Palin isn't ready to be President and if my friend votes for McCain, Palin will be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

You are right. If you vote for McCain, Sarah Palin will be a heartbeat from the Presidency. I know you have some misgivings about her and I can understand that. I don't have those problems. Quite simply, in my opinion, a couple of bad interviews early in your time on the national stage do not an incompetent person make.

However, while she will be next in line to be President, I can't guarantee that she won't become President, nor can I guarantee that she will. What I can guarantee is that if Obama is elected, he will be the President, and that idea scares me beyond belief.

I told my wife something today that I never thought I would ever, ever say. I wish Hillary had won the Democratic nomination. During the primaries, I rooted for Obama to win the nomination because I dislike Hillary on the same level that most avid Democrats dislike Bush. However, if McCain can't win, I would so much prefer that Hillary be President over Obama, because he scares me that much.

As I listen to more and more that comes out about Barack Obama, I realize how dangerous he is for this country. The redistribution of income that he wants to do, the statements that indicate he thinks the Constitution was wrong.

I've heard him say that he doesn't think we should be sending billions of dollars to countries that don't like us very much, yet, based on things he's said and the associations he's had, he and his friends don't like this country very much.

I look into what Obama says and I see so much of the Constitution that hangs by a thread. What of the right to free speech and freedom of the press. I look at his performance and I see so much of these freedoms being suspended in the name of "fairness." Just this week he kicked the Dallas Morning News, New York Post, and Washington Times off his campaign plane because they endorsed McCain. I believe this is a precursor to what we will see with him in the White House. Those media outlets critical of what he does will simply be frozen out. The media are supposed to be the watchdog of the government, yet I believe that the First Ammendment is in danger should Mr. Obama occupy the White House.

Recently I've been reading about Fascism and the rise of the Nazi party in Germany prior to WWII. The parallels to what you see in Obama's performance are disconcerting to say the least and terrifying to say the most.

This has moved beyond Democrat and Republican for me. Mostly because I don't think that down deep, if we could know him that way, Mr. Obama is a Democrat. Down deep, I believe he is somewhere between a Marxist and a Fascist and he will do so much damage to this country and what has made it great.

So please, move beyond your worry and make sure that we don't have this man dismantling our great nation.

My second friend is planning to vote third party and my plea to him is simple...

I think you're right, a third party would help this country greatly, but this is not the time to take that stand. I've outlined only a few of my fears about Mr. Obama here, and looking at the polls, I believe that, at this point, a vote for anyone but McCain is essentially a vote for Obama. There will be a time to stand for a third party, but this is a time to stand for our country and make sure that a man who thinks our founding fathers were wrong and wants to dismantle our founding documents does not occupy the White House.

10 reasons to vote GOP

I'm doing my own version of Letterman's Top Ten list. These are my top ten reasons not to vote Democratic....







These are the ten cities in the United States with the highest poverty rates. Note the amount of time that they've had Republican leadership.

I live in Toledo and the city is a mess. We've got some good points (the zoo, the art museum, the parks), but my basic analysis of it is that the schools are on academic watch, most of the roads drive like bombed out airstrips,the police usually have a 1 to 3 day response time to anything that doesn't involve gunfire at the moment of the call, jobs are fleeing this city and the administration is running around planting flowers, putting up lights downtown and trying to convert a warehouse into a concert hall. Talk about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Know what we have in common with the ten cities on that list? Democratic rule. Toledo is such a Democratic stronghold that we actually have two Democratic parties. You read that right, TWO DEMOCRATIC PARTIES, the A-Team and the B-Team. Sure, there's a Republican party here, but the fact is that the unions (I'll be beating my head against this wall in a later blog entry) have such a stranglehold on this city that if you ran Jesus himself on the Republican ticket, you couldn't get him elected.

Now, I ask you, why on earth would you want to put the same sort of people who ran these cities into the ground in charge of the entire United States? Having said that, I have to say that on the whole, I think we could be better off with some of those guys (including Kwami Kilpatrick) in charge before the current Democratic ticket. Why? Because while I believe that while most of those guys couldn't economically develop a lemonade stand, much less a city, I don't think that they'll take us down the road to Hell as fast as Obama, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank and the others.

A tarnished glimmer of hope

I caught this interview with Charles Barkley. It gives me a glimmer of hope, but a tarnished one in that he seems to think that racism is the only reason that people wouldn't vote for Obama. While I'm sure that is a reason for some, I take offense at being painted with that brush.



I find it interesting that despite the claims that the Republicans are running on race, the Democrats are the only ones who you hear talking about race. It's interesting that they constantly claim that the Republicans are running on race, but since you can't find anyone in the Republican party saying that people shouldn't vote for a black man the Democrats have to claim it's done by codewords.

I could go on all day about that as well as some things in that interview that made me want to stand up and cheer Mr. Barkley. I'll write about those in later blogs but today I want to talk about my glimmer of hope.

My glimmer of hope is in what he said about the polls. I disagree with the motivation, but I truly agree with Mr. Barkley that the polls are completely useless and that this election will be neck and neck down to the wire.

I agree that there are probably a lot of people who will tell pollsters that they would vote for a black man and then actually vote for someone else, but I think that in most cases it's not racism but political correctness that motivate that. I know a couple of people who are very racist, and they will admit to anyone who will listen that they would never vote for a black man. However, others that I know (including myself) wouldn't vote for Obama, not because of the color of his skin, but because we believe that he and his Socialist policies will take the country down a road of destruction. I believe that some of these people (myself not included) would tell a pollster that they would vote for Obama because they don't want to be seen as a racist.

As of today, the polls show that Obama's lead had dwindled to within the margin of error in most cases, and if we look back at a sampling of the 2004 election, on the left is what the polls predicted, on the right was the actual election result...

Iowa
Kerry by 1%.......................................Bush by 0.1%
Nevada
Kerry by 1.4%...................................Bush by 2.6%
New Mexico
Kerry by 4.2%...................................Bush by 0.8%
Ohio
Kerry by 6.5%...................................Bush by 2.1%
Minnesota
Kerry by 14.3%.................................Kerry by 3.5%
New Hampshire
Kerry by 15%.....................................Kerry by 1.4%
North Carolina
Bush by 3.6%.....................................Bush by 12.4%
Pennsylvania
Kerry by 13.8%.................................Kerry by 2.3%
Wisconsin
Kerry by 5.7%...................................Kerry by 0.4%

As I said, I'm with Charles here. The polls are totally meaningless, this will be neck and neck down to the wire, maybe, just maybe, it wasn't too late and the people have seen what a frightening spectre that a Socialist candidate who thinks that the Constitution was wrong.

Voters I understand and voters I don't

I got this audio in an email from a friend yesterday. It's a bit that Howard Stern did where he sent one of his people into Harlem to talk to Obama supporters. I think it says something about where at least some of Obama's supporters are coming from. If it weren't so frightening, it would be funny...



After hearing this audio this morning, I can fully understand why it is that some people will vote for the man. It truly is out of a lack of information. They're angry, they know that the Republicans have the Presidency, and therefore, the problems must be the Republicans' fault. Therefore, they're going to vote for Obama, and anything that is attributed to him must be right. Never mind if it's actually what he believes or not, never mind if it's actually what they believe or not.

I have a couple of coworkers who fall in this category, one of whom told me that Clinton was a great President. When I asked him what Clinton did to make him great, he said, "You didn't get poorer during his administration." I pointed out that for me that has been true of every President since Carter and asked him what Clinton did during his administration to facilitate my not getting poorer. He said that he couldn't tell me because he's never done any research into what Clinton did or didn't do during his Presidency. So, much like the people in the above audio, he had no information to support the view he had.

The second coworker just recently told me that this will be the first time he's going to vote, but he's going to do it because he feels so strongly about this election. Good for him, except he also falls into that uninformed voter category. He spent the next few minutes explaining to me that the reason we need Obama's change is because the economy crashed because Bush spent all of the banks' money on the war.

These people I understand. They are so woefully uninformed that they can't understand what taxes, redistribution of wealth and so forth will mean to them.

The Obama-supporting coworker I can't understand is a trust fund kid. Everyone knows that she comes from a family with money. We all know the lifestyle she lives. We all know that the best salary in her job description at our shop won't pay for one aspect of the life that she lives, much less all of her lifestyle. Yet, she's a very avid liberal and Obama supporter. Do she and people like her not realize that when Obama, Biden, Pelosi, etc. talk about taxing the crap out of the wealthiest of Americans, she is who they are talking about? She has to. This is not an uneducated, uninformed woman. She's got a lot on the ball.

I have a theory on why she thinks this way. She's what I call an old-money liberal. She was born into this money. She's never had to work for it. She's always been entitled to it and thinks that everyone should be entitled like she is. The thing that she doesn't appreciate is that someone at some time in her family put in a lot of hard work to achieve the family fortune that she and her siblings now enjoy.

I've been working hard at building a little remodeling business on my days off. I've put in a lot of hard work, a lot of 12 and 14 hour days where I work at remodeling before I go into my regular job. I'm starting to do better and I'm looking at the possibility of hiring a part-time helper next year. Should I be able to continue building this business and want to pass it down to my kid or sell it off and pass the proceeds down to my kid, who are Obama and his ilk to tell me that I and my kid have too much and that they need to confiscate a bunch of it so they can "spread the wealth?"

Where is my incentive to build my little business into anything that could give other people jobs if the SuperLiberals are just going to come, take most of it away and give it to other people? Instead, maybe I should just sit back and wait for them to take someone else's fortune and redistribute it to me.

The problem with Socialism is that as soon as the people figure out that they don't have to do anything to have things handed to them, productivity stops. You may remember a little experiment with that called the USSR. It didn't work out too well.

Going back to yesterday's blog about people who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it, did you know that the original settlers here tried a socialist setup They originally set up their colony that everyone put in everything they produced into one group and then everyone took what they needed out of that. It failed miserably. Once they let people keep the benefits of their hard work and made it so that the harder they worked, the better off they were, they succeeded.

That's what this country has been about since the start. Do we have problems? Sure. Are there areas where we could do better? Certainly, but dismantling the entire system and replacing it with Marxism, which has to date been nothing but a failure, is pure insanity. To quote my best friend (who incendentally is quite liberal), "We have a horrible system of government here. It's slow, it's unfair, and a constant problem. It's the worst system of government on earth except for all the others."

Quotes

I've spent the last few days with some quotes out of history running through my head...



1) "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx



2) "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana



3) "Be afraid when you are approached by someone who says, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help." --Ronald Reagan



These three quotes just keep going through my head as I watch my country go down what I believe to be a very dangerous road. The dangerous road I see is the road toward socialism. Yes, I believe that Barack Obama is a full-on socialist at the core of his being. That normally wouldn't frighten me, but when you combine it with the fact that the exceptionally liberal members of congress could have a bulletproof majority, it just completely scares me.

First, lets begin with Mr. Obama. We've all heard the "Joe the Plumber" statements where he says he wants to spread the wealth around, but what is being largely ignored is the 2001 radio interview below where he actually says that in the civil rights movement, the court didn't go far enough to address the redistribution of wealth. Yes, he said redistribution of wealth as in the core belief of Mr. Marx listed above. He also lamented the fact that the court didn't break free from the limitations set by the founding fathers in the constitution. Give it a listen and see for yourself.



But you combine that with the libs having the potential of a bulletproof majority in both houses and you get the potential of people like John Kerry being able to push through the new "New Deal" that he says we need. You can read about it in a Boston Herald article. The problem with this as a theory is that if you read up on your history, you would see that the New Deal extended, not ended, the Great Depression. What ended the Great Depression was not the New Deal; it was WWII. Also, for those of you who don't know your history, there are several programs created by the New Deal that are still around today. The three biggest are: Social Security, The Securities and Exchange commission (SEC) and Fannie Mae. That's right, Fannie Mae, one of the biggest causes of the wreckage that is currently our economy was created by the New Deal, which people like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton want to take us back to. Yes, as Mr. Santayana said, "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

Personally, I wouldn't be so worried about Obama being President if it weren't for the fact that it appears that the people who want bigger and bigger government are going to have a bulletproof majority in both houses of Congress. I also wouldn't be afraid if the liberal folks were to hold a majority in Congress if we had a non-socialist President. Unfortunately if this election goes through as the polls indicate, I see a future of bigger and bigger and bigger government which will be trying to help and as Mr. Reagan said, "Be afraid when you are approached by someone who says, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."