The Springboard

Newt Was Brilliant in the CNN Debate

2012-01-20T16:58:00.000-08:00

Whatever your opinion of former speaker Newt Gingrich, his response to John King in the recent CNN debate wherein John King chose to open the republican debate with a question about the accusation by Newt Gingrich's former wife that he wanted an open marriage was nothing short of brilliant. The standing ovation he received from the audience was more than well deserved. Even Mitt Romney deserved some kudos for his very poignant response, "John, let's get on to the real issues."

My sentiments exactly.

The sad fact is that so many of these debates led by the largely liberal media have been grossly out of touch with the many real issues we are currently facing as a nation, focusing on things that frankly aren't all that important. Just one example would of course be the "condom" question posed to Mitt Romney in a debate not so long ago. Newt made an obvious point when he said, "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking republicans." Because that's exactly what the media has been doing by posing really silly questions in debates that should not only shed light on the proposed policies of the candidates vying for the presidency, but that should also shed light on the very real failures of the Obama administration, and the very real dangers we face nationally if Barack Obama is elected to a second term in office.

The media is supposed to be reporting the news objectively. In the world of journalism there should be no democrats, and no republicans. There should only be unbiased reporting of the facts. Something that is, without question, seriously lacking in the reporting of the news as it relates to our politicians.

No real news, of course. This has been going on for years. But I absolutely applaud Newt Gingrich for attacking back. Isn't about time someone finally takes the media to task?

Another thought comes to mind when I think of Newt Gingrich, because he's really been doing this since the very start of his campaign. He takes no prisoners. He tells it like it is. He does not parse his words. I find this interesting in the sense that one of the guys we all would have enjoyed seeing enter the presidential race was Governor Chris Christie. Without a doubt Christie would have responded in much the same way that Newt Gingrich had if he had found himself in a similar light.

Which leads me to another thought that perhaps there is still some steam in the Gingrich campaign to actually win the nomination after all is said and done. The fact is that what conservatives are looking for is someone who can go toe to toe with Barack Obama in a debate. Newt can do that. What conservatives are looking for is someone who can articulate his ideas and plans. Newt can do that. And conservatives are looking for a strong voice who can lead the party, and right the path we're currently on. I think Newt can do that too.

There's still time to make that determination. But in the meantime if we get one thing out of the CNN debate, my hope is that we get a return to a focus on the issues. It's time to get down to the brass tacks. It's time to stop wasting time talking about things that don't matter. We need to be talking about tax policy, economic policy, getting Americans back to work and how we accomplish that, how we restore faith in our president and our system of government, and how we regain respect from our allies as well as our enemies. And most importantly, we need to get on to talking more indepth about exactly why Barack Obama's policies not only do not work, but why they will harm our country if we continue with them.

Let's hope that happens.

Vapor is the New Smoke. Get the environmentally safe alternative to regular cigarettes at BluCigs.com

A 9-9-9 Plan At Home

2012-01-01T08:47:00.001-08:00

In 2011 Herman Cain made the term "9-9-9" famous. It was a simple plan, even if in reality, the actual probability that he could have ever made it the reality was not very likely. I tend to think that even if he would have somehow found himself in the White House, the "9-9-9" plan probably would not have amounted to much aside from an interesting idea that would have needed quite a lot of scrutiny and ultimately, a morphing.

We'd have gotten something. But it wouldn't have been the "9-9-9" plan that Herman Cain campaigned on.

Still, I think as Americans we can use at least the simplicity of the concept of the "9-9-9" plan to right our own paths individually, and to make a strong effort toward getting our own financial houses in order. As we jump into 2012, I think we have a greater opportunity than we've had in a long time to set a new course for ourselves, and to pave a path that is far less rocky than it's been since at least 2008.

So what does a "9-9-9" plan at home mean? It means looking for simple ways to increase our earnings by 9%, decrease our spending by 9%, and reducing our debts by 9%. Granted, this is not something that's entirely easy. For example, how in the world do you increase your earnings by 9% when the average worker is probably lucky to get even a 2% increase in their wages?

Well, let's take a step back momentarily. I didn't necessarily suggest our plan would be 9%. What I said was we can use at least the simplicity of the concept of the "9-9-9" plan to right our paths individually, and to make a strong effort toward getting our own financial houses in order.

At the end of the day that number is probably not going to be 9%. But what if that number is just 1%? Can this still work out to be an effective plan? I think it can. Let's say you earned $40,000 in 2011. A 1% increase is a mere $400.

The point I'm making is that irrespective of whatever percentage number you choose, having a plan and being committed to that plan is what's important. And by the way, keep in mind as well that all of these numbers combined work together to acheive the goal. If you can increase your earnings, for example, by whatever percentage you decide is workable for you, why couldn't you also redirect that increase in earnings directly to savings? And what about debt reduction? What is the actual cost benefit to reducing debt? Paying less in interest payments of course. If you added it all up at the end of the day, I tend to think that engaging a plan like this would all benefit the entirety of the plan. Each part would complement the other, and compound the overall effect of the plan. The effective percentages would be higher than the base percentages overall.

Going into 2012 I think it's vital that we head ourselves onto a better path. We need to be more self-reliant. We need to be more capable of weathering a storm. We need to have more flexibility and therefore, more opportunity to get things accomplished, and make the path we're on less dangerous and risky as we've done in the past. Going into 2012 is a time to lay out all of our cards on the table and determine the best way to play them. It's a time to reflect on how we've played our cards in the past, and avoid the mistakes we made that helped us into this fine mess that we're only now starting to see ever so sligtly tidying itself up.

For you maybe it's the "2-2-2" plan. The numbers you pick aren't what's important. But if you want to see the most benefit in 2012, certainly picking the do-nothing "0-0-0" plan, or worse, picking the negative percentages plan from pre-2008 we were on will only get us right back where to we started in this whole fine mess.

Argument Against Voter ID in Wisconsin Is Silliness

2011-12-30T09:17:00.000-08:00

If ever there was a word in the english language that has been overused, and frankly misused in the last few years, it is the word 'disenfranchise.' And it happens to be a word often used when opponents of the voter ID laws in Wisconsin try and make their arguments against the law. "Requiring voter ID," they say, "infringes on the rights of certain people to exercise their Constitutional right to vote in an election."

I say this is a load of hogwash because the way I see it, making that claim could be applied to any number of opportunities we may wish to take part in. For example driving a car, or buying a pack of cigarettes, or a six-pack of beer. In Wisconsin, and I'm certain this is also the case in other states as well, one must have a valid photo ID to receive food stamps, to cash a check, to make a withdrawal from a bank account, and the list goes on.

The bottom line comes down to something very basic for me. Participating in certain things requires us doing the basic things to actually do it.

While it's not along quite the same line, if I want to start a business for example, I have to obtain a license. I may need to find investors or obtain a small business loan to get started. Using the argument of the opponents of the voter ID laws, making me do these basic things may disenfranchise me. Requring me to do these things may make it harder, or impossible to actually start a business.

The simple fact is that if I want to start a business I must do the basic things to do this. Just like if I want to drive a car I must obtain a license. Heck, you need a license to fish or hunt too.

And how hard is it really to obtain some form of legal photo ID I wonder? If one really wants to cast a vote and exercise their right, they should not be looking for a way to play the role of the victim and cry woe-is-me I can't vote. They should be looking for a way to do the basic things they need to do to go to the polls and vote. If they are not willing to that, these people are not disenfranchised. They are creating their own circumstances. The tools are there. The opportunities are there, and the argument against voter ID laws in Wisconsin is just nothing more than silliness and whining.

An Explosive Cupcake?

2011-12-26T13:20:00.000-08:00

I'll admit that reading the story about the woman who had her cupcake confiscated at a Las Vegas airport security checkpoint does give me reason to laugh out loud a bit. I mean, come on. Can a cupcake really be something that we should be concerned about potentially taking down an airliner? I think most would agree that's probably not the case. Still, and perhaps it's just me, but I do think it's not so unreasonable to at least think about it beyond the obvious ridiculousness of it. I can't help but wonder if, before 9/11, had this story come out about someone trying to bring a boxcutter onto a plane, might we be laughing just as hard about it?

We can of course sometimes go off the deep end, and we often do. What's that old saying about having good intentions? And this story is probably a good enough example of that. But again, who would have thought before 9/11 that someone might actually be able to take down a plane, and start a war with something so simple as a boxcutter?

I think the only thing that we should take away from this is that terrorists will try anything. They will also observe what we do, and they'll use that information to come up with new ways to get past all of our measures. Like a good accountant can find loopholes in the thousands of pages of tax code, terrorists will find a way around our security checkpoints. It may just be a matter of time. And ridiculous as it may seem, what they send our way will not look like a bomb, and might very well look a cupcake.

Well, not now. We've got the cupcake thing under control. Perhaps it could be Grandma's best chocolate chip cookie? Who knows? I'm just saying we need to be on the lookout.

SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY

2011-11-27T05:42:00.000-08:00

Yesterday marked the 2nd annual Small Business Saturday®, an event snugly nestled between Black Friday and Cyber Monday, and as the people who started this event say, during one of the busiest shopping weekends of the year. Of course it is a bit ironic that the folks behind this whole thing are in fact American Express, who happen to be nearly a $54 billion company.

By any measure, that's no small potatoes.

But neither is the impact that supporting small business has on local economies, and on something I often talk about in my blogs, and in the opinions I write at HubPages; competition. To my mind competition is really at the heart of the entire concept of the free markets. I have argued for some time now that in many ways, when we leave out the little shop on the corner in our regular shopping, we narrow the field. We break the opportunity for any real competition. Our choices become fewer, and what we have left is to choose from a shorter list of people in the marketplace. At the end of the day that means that they, the bigger businesses get to dictate the status quo. They get to dictate the prices in the market, and frankly the wages and benefits that worker's receive in the marketplace. It becomes more of a circumstance of "take it or leave it."

Yeah, that's still the free markets working. But is this the kind of free markets we really want? Is this really how we want our choices to be offered to us? In these narrow and limited ways?

What those big box stores, and huge conglomerations of eateries and banks, and other types of businesses are really saying to us is, "Where else are you going to shop?" For that matter, where else are you going to work?

If there is no pressure on the bigger businesses to pay higher wages, or to offer better choices on the shelves, they'll just do whatever brings them the most profit—heedless of the overall cost to each and every one of us. Keep in mind that right now when the choices are so limited, these businesses are only competing with each other on likewise limited terms. Terms that they ultimately decide because for most of us, the real competitors in the marketplace are not even considered.

Sure, it does mean that we get cheaper products. But is cheaper really better when we have to give up so much to enjoy it? If lower wages and less benefits are ultimately the result of this narrowed competition, is that truly to any of our benefit? Where has customer service gone? How about quality? Even to a large extent, where has business integrity gone? And again, what has happened to wages?

I'm not saying we give up entirely on the bigger businesses. But I do think that we should be more inclined to shop local whenever we can, and small whenever we can. Just a little bit of market share passed along to a small business operator goes a very long long way. And we're not just limited to shopping local stores by the way. It could be as simple as choosing a jar of salsa made by a small startup in lieu of a jar made by Frito-Lay.

Most of the time spending money small and local means that more than likely a much higher percentage of that money is going to stay right in the community where it gets spent in. Small, local businesses have a habit of also supporting small, local businesses, and so many of the products you'll find on their shelves will be from small, local businesses who employ people in the community, and do other commerce within the community and surrounding areas. The operators themselves often live in the communities as well, and so more of their profits wind up staying local as well as they also shop local.

I've suggested in the past that we spend about 25% locally. That's honestly a number I sort of picked out of the air. Actually devoting 25% of our spending locally, or on smaller businesses overall is a tough deal to do. But if we do spend more often locally, the impact that it will have on our economy going forward will be enormous. The money simply goes farther. The choices will become more. And the opportunity to more easily shop small and local will become more likely.

What I'm saying is that while I applaud the efforts of American Express for starting this, because really what they are doing is creating an awareness for the importance of small business to all business, we ought to be doing this far more often than just one day a year. If we do that, eventually we'll be doing it anyway without even thinking about it because improved competition will keep more players in the marketplace. We'll be spending locally naturally rather than having to do it now, contemplatively.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE...A TURKEY

2011-11-24T06:29:00.001-08:00

Luckily the turkey I'll be stuffing into my face today only cost me 58¢ per pound at my local grocery store. I'll have to make sure I can get all I can out of that bird considering where the markets fell to on yet another dismal day in the markets yesterday. Gazing at my wheezing portfolio, this bird, my friends, could well be my last meal.

It sometimes feels like what we have here is the Energizer Bunny of dips, doesn't it? It just keeps going, and going, and going...down!

I mean, yes. I am being a little bit fecetious. We're still above 11,000 on the Dow. And our lowest lows were in the 6000's, so we're not doing all that bad considering where we've come from.

So, what am I thankful for this fine Thanksgiving Day? I'm thankful for my gumption and my tenacity to stay the course despite it all. It's a horn I've been blowing for quite a while that the sky is not falling. The end of the world as we know it is not upon us. The world economy is not really on the brink of collapse, and certainly neither is the U.S. economy for that matter.

It just feels that way.

So yes. I'm staying the course. I'm not pulling my money out of this ugly thing, as much as I've been inclined to do so several times, having had enough of watching my hard-earned, and dilligently saved dollars slowly disappear. Nowadays it definitely seems to be true that the more I save the less I have.

But again, I'm thankful for my willingness to just keep going with it. I'm going to buy, buy, and buy some more of all of the stocks that I think will be good and strong when all is said and done—and that are quite frankly good and strong now.

I hope in the end the real turkey doesn't wind up being me.

An Open Letter to the Protesters

2011-11-09T07:39:00.000-08:00

by Breakfastpop

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is going on and on and all you have to show for your efforts are filthy parks and violent behavior that has completely obscured any message you hoped to impart. You are driving small business from the area and causing unprecedented problems for the people who actually live in the neighborhood. Your focus on corporations is impossible to understand. I assume that many of you have parents who work for these companies. These "evil" corporations have put food on your table, made health care accessible, and helped your family accumulate money in 401k's. If the people at the top earn the big bucks, so be it. They earned it and they deserve it. If you want a bigger piece of the pie you ought to be willing to work hard for it. That is the American way. We have opportunity and we work hard. It is completely un-American to stand there with one fist in the air and the other hand outstretched asking for something for nothing. I agree that we are going through rough times right now, but we will come out of it if we enact the policies that have a track record of working. If you want to raise your voices in protest, I suggest you go to Washington. The trouble started there.

You are demanding loan forgiveness for student loans you received. When you receive a loan, you sign an agreement that requires repayment of the debt. In the real world, that's how things work. You enter into a contract and you are required to fulfill the terms of the transaction. It's not rocket science. What right do you have to ask the American people to shoulder the burden of your education? You borrowed the money and it is your responsibility to pay it back. If you don't have a job, ask the bank to defer the payments until you're working, but don't ask responsible citizens who take their obligations seriously, to solve your problems.

The same is true for home mortgages. When you borrow money knowing that you can't afford to pay back the loan, you become the problem. True, the banks should have never made these loans in the first place, but you can thank the government for that. President Clinton believed that home ownership was a right and he pressured the banks to lend the money to unqualified people. If you are one of these people, ask the bank to work out an arrangement until you get on your feet, but don't expect the American taxpayer to bail you out.

We are at a crossroads in this country. We can choose to turn our backs on history and common sense and suffer the consequences of our ignorance. The only system that works is capitalism done right. If you see capitalism as the problem, then perhaps you don't belong here. If socialism gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, then you ought to take up residence in a socialist nation. It would probably turn out to be an excellent learning experience. Go to a socialist country and stand in line with your hand out. You will find yourself in a nation that is programmed to fail. Your hands will be empty.

If you expect the government to take care of all of your needs from the cradle to the grave, try Cuba. It won't be long before you are one of the refugees dying in the boats trying to come back to this country that has made you so angry. It wasn't people like you who made this nation so great. It wasn't people like you who created a thriving business, discovered a cure for a disease, or built an empire. Those people knew how to handle adversity. They used their creative energies to get through the hard times. They were not gathered in the park, sleeping in their own filth, groping females, doing drugs, destroying small business and neighborhoods. They were out in the world trying to get a job, and job to hold them until they could secure the position they really wanted. They persevered, and in the end they succeeded. Unlike you they didn't have their hands out. They are the backbone of what made our nation the most successful and generous in the world.

Get out of the parks and get a life. The party is over and now it is time to grow up.

Breakfastpop is the author of the HubPages daily blog of the same name, whose primary focus is on politics and social issues. You can read more of her work at http://breakfastpop.hubpages.com.

THE OCCUPIERS ARE WING NUTS

2011-11-08T03:12:00.001-08:00

I'm inclined to believe that everyone in the occupy movements going on around the country are all mad. Not mad as in angry, though they are that too. Mad as in crazy. Mad as in stark, raving nuts.

The left wants this to be their cause. We've heard from Nancy Pelosi on it. The President of the United States has touched briefly upon it, and seemed to simply nod and acknowledge it as a "real" movement that is a reflection of America's being fed up with the big boys. We've heard from wingnuts like Cornell West about it, and even Don King, the flamboyant (and let's face it, weird) boxing promoter has said he would go there and encourage the protesters to exercise their right to protest.

Have at it buddy. Whatever.

The reality is that this entire occupation is a disaster, and it's only becoming worse. Violence is erupting in the streets, people are being beaten down and businesses are being hurt. Not to mention there is one thing that is absolutely certain in this occupy crowd. Racism. And I find this hilarious when I think back to how badly the left wanted to paint the T.E.A. party crowd as racist. Yet not a shred of evidence could be found on film, on tape, or in pictures to prove that anything racist was being said or encouraged in any T.E.A. party rally. They're still crying racist to this day at anyone on the right. But, racism is rampant in the occupy movement, and most of it seems to be directed at Jews.

Funny too that when you look at the real history of the democrats, there seems to be a strong racist element there that nobody wants to truly acknowledge. It makes me want to scream something very juvenile back at them all on the left when they call me a racist because I oppose the views of the president, "I know you are, but what am I?"

The plain truth is that the left is not going to get their T.E.A. party counter. The truth is that the left should be completely embarassed by even the suggestion of it. Quite frankly, the left should be running for their lives having had any association with these nuts at all. If ever there was a living, breathing example, this occupy movement was the left's attempt to clutch at straws. This was the left's hope for a confirmation by the American people themselves that their (the left's) progressive, socialist agendas were resonating with the voice of The People.

They weren't. And they're not. And now it's time to go home boys and girls.

Trouble Looming For Perry

2011-10-30T06:29:00.000-07:00

When Texas Governor Rick Perry first came onto the scene I thought there was some promise for a real conservative voice entering the republican race, and I thought there would be no way that Mitt Romney would be able to compete with that. Then I saw the debates, and the first thought that came to mind was, "Oh no." And then I thought of John McCain and something I often said about his campaign. That is, I thought it wasn't McCain's message that was the problem. It was articulating his message that was the problem.

Granted, McCain was no conservative. Let's be sure about that. But clearly his plan for America was a much better one than Obama's plan was no matter how you sliced it. On paper McCain was the better candidate. But those debates were the death knell for him. What's on paper doesn't matter at the end of the day. McCain simply could not convey anything to the American people in those critical debates that made any sense.

There's no question that Obama is a strong campaigner. He's an even better debater. He proved that in the last election. I think we can't lose sight of that fact. Neither can Rick Perry. The republican voters, and the independents who are not in Obama's camp know this as well, and no one wants another candidate who cannot beat the opponent.

While I'll admit that there are perhaps too many debates—13 to be exact—if there are going to be debates Rick Perry needs to be in those debates. His decision to pull out of the debates tells me one thing. He can't handle the pressure. He can't articulate his message when it matters. And he's going to need to be able to be a strong debater if he wants to have a shot at beating Barack Obama if Perry is ultimately to get the nomination.

The bottom line is that I'd like to see Perry succeed. He really is the real conservative up for the job of running the country. And I like him over Romney. If Perry were to get the nomination he would have my vote hands down. His tax plan would certainly work, and I think would pump tons of revenue into the government's coiffures. His energy plan is spot on. And let's make no mistake about it, Mitt Romney is no conservative.

But Perry needs to show he can be there through thick and thin and handle himself under pressure. These debates, while cumbersome and boring to some, are the stage that tells us all how each of the candidates will perform in the final debates when it's down to one republican and one Barack Obama. Right now on all counts Rick Perry has performed badly. Leaving the debates now will only serve to solidify how poorly he's done in the mind of Americans. And I'm certain his absense will be an ongoing topic for discussion in the future debates, making a bit of buffoonery (if that's even a word) out of anything Rick Perry tries to accomplish outside of the debates.

There's that old saying that if you can't stand the heat you get out of the kitchen. But if you want to be a chef, you either stand the heat in the kitchen, or you're just not cut out to be a chef.

What About Bob?

2011-10-18T02:53:00.001-07:00

Does anyone else notice a theme that seems rather apparent in this crappy economy we're all stuck in? Everyone wants more money.

We are all well aware that of course the government wants more money. President Obama seemed to almost chant that with his "pass this bill" rhetoric—the real message behind his jobs bill is of course more taxes. And not a day goes by we don't hear from somebody in the Congress, or a representative from our local municipality that the coiffures are dry, we need more, more, more!

The banks are considering charging fees for the use of their debit cards now. Of course the answer to that is because we are having trouble turning a profit. When you travel to Las Vegas, they want to charge you a resort fee that can be as much as $15-$20 per night. For? Would you have guessed it's a charge for the use of their towels, and to have a maid come in and toss your sheets? All things that back in the day used to be a part of what you pay for in your regular nightly rate to stay at a hotel.

...because we all know that the hotels in Vegas are financially wheezing so that these fee resorts are a must charge—even though profits were up by around 36% last year despite the lagging economy. Do pardon my sarcasm on this particular item, thank you.

In all of this I ask, "What about Bob?" What about you and I? Aren't we Bob? Look, we're having trouble too. We are having trouble turning a profit just like everyone else. Our costs have gone up too. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me right now, but I can tell you that nearly every single daily necessity has risen in cost steadily, and heavily over the last at least four years or so.

Might I only ask one other begging question besides asking, "What about Bob?" Where exactly in hell is all of this frigging money?

I'll admit that this is a bit of digression, here, but I do think it's important to make a note of it. That is, I hate to get back on my bash the CEO bandwagon here, because every time I do that I get called a moron for not understanding about risk reward, and entrepreneurship, and for not appreciating hard work. But the reality is that all the while, while CEOs keep saying they need more to keep the wheels of their business turning, I see their paychecks rising in record numbers. The money isn't going into infrastructure. It's not going into improving efficiency. It's not going into giving their employees pay raises.

But CEOs are getting pay raises. So is the Congress. So are the guys who cut the grass in the park that's across the street from my house.

So again I ask, "What about Bob?" Because if the argument seems to work for everyone else that the costs keep going up and that's why I must charge more, and need more to get by, why can't Bob make the same argument? When Bob goes to the table and says, "It just ain't cuttin' it boss," the boss just nods his head and sends Bob back through the door.

"Whine, whine, whine," the boss says. "Just deal with it. Times are tough."

And to that I say the following. Exactly! So why don't you? Just deal with it, that is. I think it's high time one of these geniuses, be they in Congress or be they in business, with all of their fancy degrees actually use an ounce of their brain to figure out what the problem is before they determine what the solution is. Because every time one of these solutions come up, Bob has to give up more of his money.

Oil Prices Could Not Be Sustained

2011-05-09T01:56:00.001-07:00

This most recent price drop in oil, and ultimately the price of a gallon of gas is a bit interesting. I think it says quite a lot about where the economy really is right now, and to what extent we are in recovery. I also think it means oil prices will continue to go down, not up. The truth is consumers are still tapped out. Jobs numbers may be slowly bouncing back, but just because more people are back to work does not mean those same people are caught up financially, nor that they will have much in the way of disposable income. People are going to pull back where they must in order to save money. And because oil is so closely tied to every other thing we buy, people will have to pull back not just on driving, but on other things as well.

This pullback is showing already in a decline in miles driven and gallons of gas sold. I think the fact that we got to a pullback on consumption of gasoline so soon is telling. Oil prices simply could not be sustained. People cannot afford the additional cost. Granted, I've made the argument that oil is perhaps one of the most important commodities in the United States, and when you value it against its current prices, even the higher prices, it seems rather cheap. I've made comparisons to a 20 oz. bottle of Coke which runs around $10 per gallon, and 5-Hour Energy which sells for as much as $192 per gallon. Still, the reality is that while the actual prices of those things are much higher than gasoline, we don't consume those items in the same quantities that we do of gas, and so inevitably the price of a gallon of gas is going to take a bigger, more hurtful chunk out of our wallets, and as a result, it is going to cause us to have to make some decisions as it relates to spending. Certainly it gives us cause to make decisions about driving.

The result? We won't likely see $5 per gallon of gas anytime soon. And I think if we do see gas rise to $5, there will be a major spike downward in gasoline consumption, and I think discretionary spending goes out the window, spiraling us into an interesting dynamic of very, very slow economic growth, higher savings rates by Americans, and lackluster consumer demand. In a way, we're kind of in this mode right now. But I think if we can keep prices down, we can have better growth going forward. Not great growth. But better growth than what we'd see if gas prices were to run up to $5, because obviously that cost would trickle upward eventually into especially food prices, and it just is not possible for Americans to have their two highest expenses see dramatic cost increases and have any possibility of any significant growth in the economy.

Again, the folks are tapped. What's that old saying? You can't get blood out of a stone. Prices will have to be adjusted to what the market is willing to bear. And right now that's not a lot. So, companies will have to go back to the drawing board and draw down their margins and look for better ways to create jobs for Americans despite it all (because without jobs there'll be no growth), and they'll have to get really creative in how they do this profitably. No more are the easy days of easy decisions to simply move work out of the country and take away people's pay and benefits. Government has tossed as much money as they can into the economy. Now its time for corporate dollars to make it into the hands of Americans through work. There's simply no other way. Corporations need buyers. Buyers need money. It really isn't rocket science is it?

I Still Believe Gold Is In A Bubble

2011-01-03T04:19:00.000-08:00

The excitement hasn't exactly quieted down yet. People are still very much sure that gold is the investment to hold right now. I think they are half-right in their thinking. Gold will continue to hold value over time. I think that's fairly indisputable. However, I'm inclined to believe that the current price of an ounce of gold is inflated by a lackluster economy in not just the U.S., but across the world, a lagging dollar, and all of the uncertainty that those two things have on people's confidence in paper currencies for which there is no tangible backing for.

Simply put, gold is the most recent example of a bubble in play, and like all bubbles, it is going to burst one day. It's only a question of when.

There are telltale signs of this. For one thing, there are standalone operations that have set up shop in strip malls, and kiosks have even been opened up in the bigger malls. Pawn shops have become major operations just from buying used gold to be sold and melted down and resold to eager buyers. People are flocking to everything gold, and they are turning their attics and basements upside down trying to find anything gold that they can sell.

It's the crazy, in my opinion, that marks the end of a bubble. When oil was going through the roof, people in the know started shouting out that the price for a barrel of oil would surpass $500. An outfit formed that would sell gasoline at today's price that could be used when tomorrow's price went higher. That business tanked. It was another example of the crazy. Oil crashed. When housing boomed and people began getting crazy, refinancing over and over and taking out more and more money each time, buying lavish vacation homes, boats, cars, and anything else their hearts desired. Housing crashed. When the Internet was at its height and people began talking about 'the new economy,' and how business could be transformed, not needing a penny of any real revenue to make it big, and wages were being replaced by stock options and straight shares of company stock, this was the crazy. The Internet boom crashed.

Granted, gold may not be quite on scale with these other bubbles. But with people converting a lot of their dollars to gold, it still will have an impact. And it's still a bubble. It will still burst like all bubbles ultimately do. My only suggestion is to proceed with caution.

Links of Interest

Gold Market, Investing in Gold
What are some good penny stocks?
Consumer Financial Protection Is A Necessary Evil

Forget About The Mosque

2010-09-16T15:48:00.000-07:00

That's my plain and simple message to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Just simply forget about the Mosque. It is as clear as the nose on my face, as it is equally clear on the faces of better than 70% of the rest of Americans who oppose the proposed Mosque being built so near to Ground Zero, that this Mosque has not a thing to do with building any bridges between Muslims and Christians (it is not accomplishing anything remotely resembling that), and certainly it is not accomplishing any bridge building when it comes to American's overall perception of Muslims. If it is accomplishing anything at all, it's causing more dissent and mistrust.

Part of this stems from additional comments by the Imam that simply do not make sense, that are only going to make matters worse for him, his building, and his bridge. Such as making the remark that American's thinking that Ground Zero is hallowed ground is misguided. False. To Americans that ground is sacred, and for obvious reasons which it is clear the Imam has no understanding of. It also says loud and clear, in my eyes, that he doesn't have any real connection to America, American culture, nor American values—yet he calls himself an American?

Of course, you can add on the recent uncoverings of the Imam's ties with this Khan guy, who is not embarrassed at all about the fact that he believes 911 was an inside job.

My thinking is this. I'm not saying to the Imam don't build nothing. Just don't build a Mosque. Don't even give it a name like Muslim Cultural Center. If you want to build something, including a bridge, then why not build an American memorial and cultural center which honors the victims of 911, and that is non-denominational? That's something I think we could all live with. That is something which would certainly clear the air about what the Imam's intentions are. It certainly would send a message to any Jihadists out there who may wish to correlate this Mosque so near to Ground Zero with Islamic victory against the infidel Americans.

There is dirt here. And I'm not just talking about the dirt on the ground. There's dirt on the Imam. There's dirt on his cohorts. Certainly there will be dirt on his financiers in the deal. And that's part of the problem for Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as well and his bridge. When 70% of the population are against the Mosque, you better believe there will be a very large majority of those people ready with shovels to dig that dirt up and lay it all out on the table for everyone to see. It's happening already, and it will only get worse.

Mr. Rauf, just forget about the Mosque. You'll be happy you did. Build something, my man. Anything really. Just not a Mosque.

Read more by Springboard on HubPages:

Springboard on HubPages

QURAN BURNING IS MORE IGNORANCE

2010-09-11T08:02:00.000-07:00

The burning of the Quran by a Florida pastor sort of reminds me of one of those TV infomercials where the host yells out to the eager, waiting audience, "But wait! There's More!" Ignorance, that is. That's what we're getting more of with this deal. Ignorance.

I spoke very loud and clear about the Mosque being built so near to Ground Zero being a very bad idea. I listened to all of the arguments that the proponents of the Mosque made about rights and the Constitution. I very quickly conceded that if Imam Rauf wants to build a Mosque anywhere he wants to, he most surely can. The Constitution clearly says so, and I don't dispute that fact one iota. The question for me was and is, if the vast majority of the American people are opposed to the building of the Mosque, and it is the desire of the builder to create a bridge between the Muslims and the rest of America, wouldn't it be the prudent thing to do to not build the Mosque?

Bridges aren't built by pissing off everyone on the bridge.

And what of this burning of the Quran? Sure, the pastor has every right in the world to light the thing on fire and chant whatever things he wants to chant while doing it. But should he do it? Is it the best judgement on his part? Is it the prudent thing to do? In this case do two wrongs make a right?

I think not.

I put the burning of the Quran in the very same light that I put the building of the Mosque. Both are bad ideas, and I think they are both bad ideas for very obvious reasons. The ignorance of both the Florida pastor and the New York Imam is as clear as the nose on my face.

READ MORE OF SPRINGBOARD ON HUBPAGES:
The Mosque Is Not About Religious Freedom
From Comments:Everything about this attack was based on the Muslim faith, in the name of Allah, and in the cause of Islamic Jihad...if you want to build an AMERICAN non-denominational center of worship and prayer, go for it. A Mosque is about victory plain and simple. A bridge, by the way, travels in both directions. A Mosque only travels in one.
It's Who You Know, And Who You Blow
From Comments:Mr. Rockefeller Sr. CAN look down at Jr. and say, "Junior, this here money is mine. This here acheivement is through my effort. My smarts. My guts. I will not give you the fruits of my efforts and you should not expect that I offer them to you. You CAN be a witness to my acheivement, and you CAN be inspired by the knowledge that we live in a world where IF you work as hard as I did, and do your very best as I did, that while you still may not acheive to the exact level that I did, that you will have at least had the exact opportunity that I did." Conceptually, if you succeed, you succeed on your own because you are meant to. And if you fail, you do that on your own as well for the same reason.
Climate Change and the Issue of the Falling Sky
From Comments:Curbing pollution and being responsible citizens of the earth is a very important thing. I do believe that we're doing plenty to hurt at least the ecosystem, and it could have a profound impact on even our own lives. But the gloom and doom stuff is just a lot of focus on hocus pocus and I think it's simply the wrong way to approach the underlying issue of pollution and the effects it could have on the environment.

President Obama Is Not My President

2010-08-14T09:04:00.000-07:00

On nearly all of the issues, I strongly disagree with President Obama. That said, I'd like to think I've also been fair to him when I felt it was necessary to do so. I made one point very clear in a recent hub I wrote, "Conservatives Should Not Be Bashers," that reality is key. Fairness is essential. Bashing is pointless. I was speaking mainly on the BP oil spill and how Americans seemed to be of the idea that the president had a magic wand somewhere he could wave and make the whole disaster disappear.

He didn't, and he couldn't.

In the hub, I pointed out that it was unfair to blame former President Bush for all of the woes of hurricane Katrina just the same as it was unfair to blame President Obama for all of the woes of the BP oil spill. Bush didn't get it all wrong when it came to the Katrina situation, though he made many mistakes. But neither did President Obama get it all wrong when it came to the oil spill. And yes, I think we can all agree he made many mistakes.

The point is that regardless of who is in the White House, and regardless what my political leanings happen to be, I do my best to view each issue on the merits. It is not impossible, in my mind, for a democrat to be right any more than it is not impossible for a republican to be wrong.

The recent announcement by President Obama that he supports the mosque at Ground Zero being built, however, is something I simply cannot live with. For me, it's the last straw. It is a huge insult to the people of this country, the people who died on September 11, 2001, and I can't for the life of me understand how this could be acceptable to anyone. Especially the President of the United States.

In case anyone is not clear on the matter, our country was attacked by radical Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001. They flew airliners into the World Trade Center. They flew an airline into the Pentagon. And had they succeeded, United Airlines flight 93 would likely have crashed into the White House. This was clearly an act of war, irregardless whether or not it was a sovereign nation who flew those planes into our buildings or the 19 terrorists who did.

The idea that any sitting president would not see the insensitive nature of building a mosque on what is now hallowed ground in this country is deplorable. The fact that President Obama did not instead voice outrage for even the suggestion that we build a mosque at Ground Zero is almost unbelievable.

It isn't enough apparently, that throughout this president's time in office he has repeatedly bowed to the world, and apologized for this great land. It isn't enough that Michelle Obama made comments before President Obama was sworn in that she wasn't proud of her country. Now he has quite literally turned his back on the 2,976 Americans who lost their lives on that awful morning, and has as well turned his back on the 4,414 American soldiers who have died in Iraq. The president has turned his back on the 1,149 Anericans who have died in Afghanistan.

People have called for the impeachment of President Obama many times over the last nearly two years of his presidency, and I've called them off-base and out of line. I've defended that while I disagree with the president and his policies, I still support the office, and respect the office, and fully realize that irregardless of my opinion, President Obama is still the president. You could have hated former President Bush to the core, but he was still the president.

My opinion has changed. I now feel that President Obama is not fit to be president. He has simply turned his back on this country one time too many, and honoring—for whatever purpose—a religious group who is in any way connected to the terrorist group that launched an attack against the United States is abhorrent, and an impossible pill to swallow. Never before have I seen a president who is as unpresidential as President Obama is. Never before did I ever think that we would see the day that a sitting president would honor our enemies, who would not stand tall in the face of this mosque being built and say clearly to Al Qaeda and the Muslim community, "This is not a war against Islam. This is a war against radical Islam. This is not a war against a people. This is a war against terrorists. This mosque will not be built, and will not in any way serve as a symbol of victory for our enemies. Not in my country. Not on my watch."

Mr. President, if you thought that Guantanamo Bay was a recruitment tool for terrorists, what exactly do you think a mosque being built in the very place where Muslim terrorists attacked our country will serve as?

President Obama is not my president. I cannot, and will not support him. This is just too big to ignore. For the good of this country, it is my firm hope that the rest of America cannot accept this either. It is my opinion the president should resign. He is clearly a traitor, and not patriotic as a president of our nation should be. I'll go as far as to say that President Obama is a disgrace to the office, and a disgrace to the United States of America.

More by Springboard:

Show Me Yours, And I'll Show You Mine
You heard me correctly. That's right. I want to see what you've got. Mr. Geithner, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Rangel. If you show me yours, I'll gladly show you mine. The money, that is, of course. More specifically, the money I have to pay in taxes to my government.
If It Quacks Like A Duck...
I am really beginning to hate the word "fee." I think it's a word that has all too quickly become something used in the business world in the place of the term price increase, in much the same way that the tax man has seen fit to use the word in the place of the term, new taxes.

I'll Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours

2010-08-06T05:54:00.000-07:00

The title I chose for a recent hub I wrote about tax cheats in government wasn't exactly that phrase. But it's as close as you can get to, "Show Me Yours, And I'll Show You Mine," without running into duplication problems. The thing I found funny was the sudden surge in my hit-rate on this hub in particular. Seems that when you offer up such a title, people are bound to be looking for...

Well, let's just say, something else.

The title alone bringing unsuspecting seekers of that something else doesn't necessarily translate into any additional click-throughs on the Google Adsense part (at least it hasn't yet), but it is still an interesting thing to me. Perhaps as well as lesson and an exercise?

I say the latter because what if I did provide just a little subtlety of the something else. How could that translate into more traffic and a higher click-through rate? I've seen before where a provocative title can bring in some additional readers (ar at least lookers). But this one surging in particular is more interesting as a whole.

I just hope the actual subject matter wasn't too disappointing. I hate to leave anyone feeling let down.

CUT CEO PAY, NOT WORKERS

2010-07-27T07:20:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to say that there aren't times when job cuts are a necessity. Labor is costly to any business, even if that labor is also at the heart of what drives that business forward—you need people to execute the ideas and satisfy the customers. And I'll even concede that a recent question that was posed on CNBC.COM regarding whether or not U.S. companies should follow along with a trend in Germany where companies there are opting to reduce worker hours rather than cut jobs altogether is certainly a better choice, perhaps, than tossing workers out on their hindquarters. People who have no work, and consequently not much money to spend will not be any help to a lagging economy, especially if the economy is largely driven by consumerism such as ours is.

But here's one thing I don't hear that I think might also help to ease the strain a bit as well. That is; reducing CEO compensation and executive pay packages. To me, this would seem to be a huge and behemoth area where we could make some very deep and serious cuts. It's great to earn multi-million dollar salaries and bonus packages when the economy is booming and the company's bottom line is bursting with new money. But if that's not the case, then all employees need to be considered when cuts are to be made.

CEO's are employees.

The bottom rung of the ladder is typically the first one who gets affected, and rarely, if ever, does the top give back some of its fruits. I think rather than cut back hours, or cut jobs, some of these CEO's need to use some of their business sense and make tougher choices to save jobs. Streamline the business first. Cut their own exorbitant salaries and bonuses first. Then look to the bottom where the impact of cuts will be hardest felt. Granted, the CEO's duty is not to the workers, necessarily, but to the shareholders. Still, shareholders will not receive the real value of the investment they've made if the side of the company (the workers) who will execute the real core of the business are not happy, or if they feel slighted. And shouldn't we all understand as shareholders that our stock prices will not rise, and the goods our companies sell will not be sold if everyone is standing in the bread line rather than on the production line?

The American worker is not the bad guy.

READ MORE BY SPRINGBOARD:

American Workers Should Not Get The Shaft
The Tony Hayward Fail

Lincoln MKZ Hybrid Will Not Be More

2010-07-22T06:41:00.000-07:00

Gas prices are still not exactly cheap, especially if you still happen to be driving a larger vehicle that sucks up 20 or less miles per gallon or so. But we're certainly a long way from the prospect of potentially seeing $5 per gallon. Still, oil is something I think we can all agree on that we need to reduce our dependence on. Not just for reasons of national security, but also for the environment. That's why hybrid cars, which nearly every automaker now offers, are something to think about when you are in the process of considering your next automobile purchase.

I've said before that if we truly want hybrid cars to have a real shot, and if we want them to truly demonstrate what the demand for these cars are, we are going to have to offer them without the premium price that usually goes along with them. Especially in an economy such as we are in right now, people who are in a position to buy a new car very much do take into consideration the very much higher prices attached to these hybrid cars. On most models that premium is about $8,000-$12,000. Few people want to shell out more money than they have to when there's still quite a lot of shaky ground in the economy. Even if it's likely that over the long run, the additional miles per gallon may well pay for the premium in having to buy less gas overall.

That's why I'm happy to hear Ford will make its Lincoln MKZ hybrid sedan available without the extra cost. I say bravo zulu to Ford Motor Company for taking environmental concerns seriously, and for making an honest commitment to the reduction of oil usage, and improving fuel economy—which is what offering a model for the same price actually suggests they are doing. It's a much easier decision for one to make, "Do I buy the hybrid or the gas-powered version?" when the price tag for the two cars is exactly the same. And I'm inclined to believe Ford Motor Company has a hunch that without the price premium, most buyers will probably opt for the hybrid version.

This makes sense for another reason. Over time, the more demand there is for the hybrid technology, the less this technology will cost, and Ford will have a hand in increasing that demand and driving down that cost. Eventually, they may be able to offer similar choices in their cheaper models as that cost comes down. It's better than an incentive.

By the way, I should also point out this is just one more reason to own Ford stock. I've been recommending this as a buy for quite some time, and I think it is absolutely a buy.

Disclaimer: Jim Bauer currently owns shares in Ford Motor Company (F) stock.

MORE READING:

FORD MOTOR COMPANY: AN AMERICAN GEM
TOYOTA AND TIGER HAVE A LOT IN COMMON

WHO'S GOT THE AMERICAN WORKER'S BACK?

2010-07-19T16:16:00.000-07:00

Partisanship is something that really gets under my skin. To me, you can be a republican and agree with a democrat and vice versa. You can be against 99 out of 100 policies that Barack Obama supports, but still support one. Granted, partisanship is played out in exactly the same way on both sides of the aisle, so if George Bush were still the president you could put his name in place of Barack Obama's name and have the same argument. Democrats can support one out of 100 policies that Bush supports.

It's not even a tall order.

The latest debacle comes out of this whole debate as to whether or not we (the republicans) should allow more pork barrell spending by already out of control spending democrats in order to ensure that the hard working Americans who are currently unemployed—thanks to the still high rate of unemployment, which is thanks to the anti-business Obama administration and all of his democratic cronies—don't have their unemployment insurance benefits stopped.

Sure. Spending is a serious issue. It's way out of control. At some point in the very near future we are going to have to take drastic and serious measures to curtail spending at every turn. Even democrat Erskine Bowles, on the debt commission, has said we will have grave consequences if we do not do something soon. But not this very moment. Not on the backs of the American worker who is in need of his benefits right now. We can play politics later. But now is the time to give the unemployed worker at least his benefits.

The thing here is that of course the democrats want to make the republicans look bad by blaming them for the lack of benefits arriving in the mail. Even my democrat cousin snidely told me on the phone, "Yeah, how about your republicans on the workers?" So, the blame is landing squarely on the republicans so long as no benefits are coming. And yes. I don't think there is any disputing that there are things the democrats included in this bill that would turn republicans heads on the real underyling issue.

But the republicans are essentially doing exactly the same thing. That is, they are trying to make the democrats look bad by saying, "It's not our fault your benefits have stopped. The democrats are to blame for putting too much pork into the bill that would have allowed your benefits."

We have to put this all into the proper perspective. This is posturing. Spending is an issue now? After we've dished out trillions of dollars in bailout monies to AIG? To Citibank? To General Motors? We want to talk about reigning in spending now? Let me just point out that the amount of money, pork included, we're talking about literally pales in comparison to the amount of money we've already laid out. And, add in the thought that there is still hundreds of billions of dollars of already approved, unspent stimulus dollars the president said we could spend any way we want to—we could get this done. We could get these benefits done.

It's all partisan politics. It's game playing. It's setting the stage for issues to come to the fore for the mid-term elections. It's a game that aims to shift anger at the democrats to anger at the republicans.

The republicans are letting the democrats get away with it.

The fact is that these folks who recieve unemployment benefits are the very same people who worked and paid taxes to pay for the bailout. They paid taxes into the federal system that will pay for the extension of benefits. They paid the taxes which paid for people to get a credit to buy a new car, or buy their first home. They are out of work largely not by their own design, but rather as a result of the shenanigans of their government and some of the largest corporations in the world.

The last people that should be left out are them. The hard-working, tax paying American worker who is right now out of work. The last people who should be allowing this are the republican party—truly the party of the American worker thanks to its pro-business stance. Voting against this bill is a vote against the American worker for whatever reason.

As for the partisanship? Well, it's just one more example that on either side, democrat or republican, they really have no clue what the average American is having to go through right now. And besides that, think about how much debate went into deciding over the last pay raises that went through Congress and the Senate. It was a very quick vote with not much debate at all, if any at all. Spending wasn't an issue there, was it?

At every turn the American worker is simply being told, "You're going to have to suck it up." It looks to me right now that there is no one who has the American worker's back. Not the democrats. And sadly, not the republicans either.

More great reading:

American Workers Should Not Get The Shaft
It happens now and again that I find myself on the opposite side of the fence of fellow republicans. In the case of the question of whether or not we should be extending unemployment benefits, I'm on the side of the fence that says we most certainly should. With unemployment numbers still around 9.5%, there are a lot of people who are looking for work. In the meantime, getting a small pittance, which is essentially what unemployment benefits are, is helpful to simply stay above water as much as possible...
Our Liar-in-Chief is at it Again!
I just watched King Teleprompter's latest Rose Garden speech in which he continued to show his ignorance and he spewed even more of his all-too-common lies. In fact, he was accompanied by three "average" Americans who are unemployed and have been searching, fruitlessly, for a new job...

Build The Fence

2010-07-14T11:33:00.000-07:00

It's not that I'm anti-social. Well, at least I'm not entirely anti-social. But the fact is that I do value my privacy very much.

My wife and I have lived in our current house for the past three years, and on the south side there is no privacy fence. We have one on the north side that was there when we moved in. I'm not sure exactly why the previous owners never put it up on both sides. But there you have it. That's the way it is.

The thing is I'd very much like to complete the fence on the south side of the house. But it's a bit of a delicate thing, is it not? I mean, I don't want to give the impression to the neighbors that we don't like them. I don't want to be considered the jerk on the block. At the same time I have to admit to not really enjoying the full potential of my own backyard. It's not like we live in a community where the houses are far apart. In our area, houses are fairly closely spaced.

And the fact is they have kids. Not that I have anything against kids. But they have 4 of them, and their mother is over there all the time. She's a bit of a talker, and you know, sometimes I just have things to do. Sometimes I don't want to talk. Sometimes I don't want to be bothered by their kids.

Time is precious. So is privacy. But how do you put up a privacy fence without offending anyone? I've thought about mentioning that we'd like to put one up. I've thought about asking if they'd mind. I've thought about telling them it's not to avoid them (even though it partly is). Still, I fear it may well be construed in a bad way.

Then again, perhaps they'd love to have a fence there as well.

MORE STUFF BY SPRINGBOARD:
HOW TO CLEAN YOUR GAS GRILL
Washington Tools Offers Wing Nuts
Get Smart And Just Do It: A Reflection
STARVIN' THE DANDELIONS

Why Such A Lack Of Concern Over Black Panthers?

2010-07-09T07:55:00.000-07:00

I don't want to see race relations in this country get any worse than they may be already. Still, I have to question why on earth the justice department would dismiss the case of the Black Panthers standing outside a polling area during the last presidential election with sticks in their hands? Not enough evidence, they said? It looks clear to me, watching the video, that there was a clear intent to invoke fear in potential white voters headed to the polls. One of the men apparently even made the comment, "Finally the white man will know what it feels like to be ruled by the black man."

That's about as racist a statement as one can be, right?

The Adams accusation notwithstanding—it's one hell of a revelation if it's true, is it not?

And imagine, for a moment, what the reaction would have been had this been two members of the Ku Klux Klan outside that polling area waving sticks at potential black voters who they assumed would probably vote for Obama. This would have opened wide a major case in this country, and perhaps would even have sparked riots or otherwise.

Let's just be sure in saying that such a thing would not have gone over well at all.

And you have to wonder as well just where the Obama administration is at with regard to race, or certainly where Eric Holder is with regard to race when you think about the Adams accusation and how quick President Obama was to react to a black professor when he was challenged by police outside his home.

We Do Have Term Limits in the USA

2010-07-07T12:11:00.000-07:00

Term limits. It's a thing I think most Americans would say they are for. No one really thinks we should necessarily have career politicians in our Congressional ranks. Certainly any one person having too much power is something that we all have great concern about—it's why we limit the number of terms a person can serve as president.

We don't want dictators. We want leaders.

Of course there's a lot more chatter these days about term limits. The whole third party movement thing is helping to fuel this. The fact that so many democrats are simply not listening to the American people is helping to fuel this. And while we're at it, let me just make myself clear that I am not suggesting that the vast majority of republicans necessarily have it right either. Their ears are slammed shut in many ways as well.

We're tired of the status quo. That much is clear. But here's my thing. We don't need Congress to come up with a bill that establishes term limits. This doesn't have to be a law. Because we already have term limits in the USA. It's called our vote.

Look, the fact is we have to hold our elected officials responsible for their actions, or their inactions for that matter. We cannot simply keep on voting these fools back in and then complain they've been there too long. If we don't like what these guys are doing, we send them home. We put in new faces. We change the landscape.

Part of the reason most of these guys don't deliver on their campaign promises, and part of the reason they albeit shut out the voice of the American people is because they have no fear of reprisal. They don't feel that the American people are going to kick them out of their offices.

If we're not satisfied with what our elected officials are doing, rather than complain about it, I say we just vote them out. Two years. One shot. You get it right or you're out. That's your term limit. The American people will decide.

MORE BY SPRINGBOARD:

A Note To Investors
PROFILE OF A PATRIOT
SPRINGBOARD ON THE 5 O'CLOCK NEWS

OTHER INTERESTING STUFF TO CHECK OUT:

Buy An American Flag

There Are No Rights For Illegal Immigrants

2010-07-07T08:15:00.000-07:00

One person writes;

"I say all humans—and the operative word is humans—should be able to have access to education. Only through education can we help fix problems in our society. Out of state students are paying higher out of state tuition because they chose to leave their state. Most of the illegal immigrant students had no choice in the matter of entering the United States. I suggest you educate your readers and not cause further frustration amongst people."

This comment came at the heels of someone who made the suggestion that if you are an illegal immigrant, you should not have access to any benefits. A statement which I happen to agree with.

There is no question that we are all human on this planet. We all have certain rights. Those rights, of course, differ from country to country, and even change a little bit depending on the religious or social cultures. But we all most certainly do have basic human rights.

The question is not about whether or not we are human. The question is not whether or not we have rights. In the United States it is undeniable what our rights are, and what benefits we are entitled to enjoy. These are for United States citizens, however, and that's where we need to make the distinction. Everyone includes people who were either born in the United States, or who have legally come here.

The thing we have to keep in mind is that these people are here illegally. That's key. They have broken the law. Perhaps the word "criminal" is a bit harsh. If I speed and break the law, I don't consider myself a criminal. But clearly a law has been broken for which there is a consequence.

It is for this very reason that laws have been broken in order to get here that illegal immigrants entering our country have no entitlement to any benefits whatsoever, which mind you, are paid for by hard-working American taxpayers. Education, to speak specifically on the argument made by the commenter, is paid for not only by hard-working American's taxes, but by American homeowners. The cost of education is already steep, and homeowners are taking it in the seat of their pants enough as it is. Now you want my taxes to cover the kids of illegal immigrants too?

Education is important. Every country should focus on education as the most basic foundation for its future successes. You need a country of citizens who are smart enough to advance your country in technology, medicine, productivity, and whatever else.

But that should be limited to your own legal citizens.

To do anything else would be akin to opening up the doors of every Wal-Mart in the country and declaring that everything in the stores is free. Maybe it's a ridiculous analogy. But why? Clearly there would be nothing left on the shelves. The stores would all be cleaned out. People would drive for miles to get to their nearest Wal-Mart and loot the stores unfettered.

Ridiculous? Yes. I'm definitely agreeing with that. Wal-Mart would never do that, and the reason is pretty obvious. It doesn't make any damn sense.

But this is exactly the message we send to people who wish to cross our borders illegally. Come on over. Come on in. Everything in America is free for the taking. We, the hard-working people of America wish for you to come on across our borders, bring your family and children—hell, bring your grandparents too—and loot us. How you get here doesn't matter. What country you come from doesn't matter. Come by boat. Come by plane. Toss a ladder up against our border's walls and climb right on over, we may even help you get down on the other side by putting up our own ladder for you to climb down. It's going to be a great party and everyone is invited.

Well, everyone except for the Americans. They will have to work. There are taxes to be paid for all of these wonderful benefits that will be given away for free.

MORE OPINION BY SPRINGBOARD:

It's Not Just About Illegal Immigration Anymore
"The situation on our borders with Mexico is yet another glaring example of the absolute idiocy, and incompetence of the Obama administration. The president has now been given every reason to clamp down on illegal immigration, and especially to send a clear message to the Mexican drug cartels, that if they carry out their illegal activities on United States soil, we will act accordingly..."

Peggy West Says Arizona Doesn't Border Mexico

2010-07-02T04:02:00.000-07:00

It's bad enough that Milwaukee County has been onboard with plans to boycott Arizona over this whole immigration law debate, something that definitely irks me in and of itself. But when Peggy West, a democrat who serves as a county supervisor for the 12th district, argued that Arizona is not a state that borders Mexico, it makes you raise your brow a little bit.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Jim Stingl gave her a pass by saying, "Lucky the rest of us never made a mistake." But the bigger problem here is that when you are arguing a bill, or making an argument for or against a bill, or making decisions as to whether or not you want to be for or against a bill, you ought be able to at least understand all of the aspects regarding the bill—or whether or not you want your county to do business with Arizona.

Like whether or not Arizona borders Mexico when the bill has to do with enforcing immigration law, which would be a greater issue for a border state than for a non-border state. Forget that no one at the top echelon even read the bill in the beginning before they commented on it, including the president himself—all democrats oddly enough.

Look, I can fully understand if someone has not looked at a map in a little while. Exactly where a particular state is might be a little bit elusive. Still, when it is as hot button a topic as the Arizona immigration bill is, and when it is something you are going to speak on, you should at least come to the podium informed. If you are going to be making decisions about anything regarding Arizona, in this particular case where Arizona is located is certainly a factor to consider.

Yes. Jim Stingle is right. We all have made mistakes. We all have misspoke. But when it comes to matters of importance, and when it comes to people in power to make decisions that influence our lives, it's not just about misspeaking. It's about not knowing what it is, exactly, that you are deciding on, nor the factors that should contribute to a good decision.

You're just governing then, by the seat of your pants and making guesses about things you know nothing about that ultimately affect us all.

Read On:

It's Not Just About Immigration Anymore

President Obama Firing of McChrystal The Right Choice

2010-06-23T12:56:00.000-07:00

When a shoe was thrown at former President Bush, I thought it was an outrageous event. I even scoffed a little bit when many Americans found it more humorous than insulting. Of course, the event did have funny undertone to it. The trouble for me was that the whole event should have also caused a great deal of disconcertment for the fact that it wasn't just President Bush who had a shoe thrown at him—the very office of the President of the United States had been disrespected.

The office still commands our respect as Americans, regardless of who sits in it.

With that in mind, I think the recent firing of Gen. McChrystal over comments he made to a Rolling Stone reporter is the right thing to do, despite whether or not Gen. McChrystal also happens to be the right man for the job in Afghanistan.

President Obama, love him or hate him, is the president. He is the Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces, and as such, the military has a duty to carry out the orders of the president, and to respect the office of the president. However unfortunate the timing may well be, the fact remains that a sitting general cannot publicly speak out against the president.

Granted, I've heard quite a few people remark, "He was just speaking his mind." And that is most certainly true. Still, what is said behind closed doors is one thing. To go public with remarks against the president or his administration is an absolute can't do.

READ ON:

Can We Just Leave Race Out Of It
Illegal Aliens And The P.C. Police Who Love Them
The Tony Hayward Fail

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY IDIOTS

2010-06-23T07:39:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration and all of its cronies are a lot that never cease to cause me to scratch and my head and utter, "huh?" The suing of Arizona over its immigration law is just another one of those occassions. I just don't get it. We have an epidemic problem in this country with illegal immigrants entering, and there are even parts of Arizona where Americans are asked to refrain from visiting due to high incidence of Mexican border crossing and drug activity.

Where does it end, I wonder? Isn't the government, isn't the president, supposed to be in the business of protecting America and her citizens?

The fact that this is not what's happening just confirms my thinking that the federal government is run by idiots. There can be no other explanation for what they are doing. With such problems the federal government should be applauding Jan Brewer and Arizona for doing what the feds ought to be able to do. Not suing them.

Furthermore, I hope that the courts at least affirm once and for all that the Arizona law practically mirrors the federal law already on the books. Wouldn't it be just perfect if the judge looked at Holder and said, "If you are going to sue Arizona, you may as well sue yourself. The Arizona law is nearly a Xerox copy."

As for Mexico getting in on the action and taking up issue with Arizona, what business does Mexico have dealing with immigration issues in the United States. Especially when Mexico is a big part of the problem?

On this issue, along with so many others, there is simply no leadership here. Nor is there any common sense. It's something we cannot hope for so long as Barack Obama is the president. The only hope we have until 2012 at this point, is that we can change the power in both the House and the Senate via the mid-term elections, and put an effective stop on any more nonsense by this crazy administration's antics.

READ ON:

PROFILE OF A PATRIOT
Arizona Immigration And Health Care Are Key Factors In My Vote
The Tony Hayward Fail

Buffet At The Wynn in Las Vegas

2010-06-16T11:15:00.000-07:00

I'll admit that the buffet at the Wynn in Las Vegas, Nevada is a bit pricey at nearly $40. Though, I have to say it is one of the better buffets I have had to date. If you happen to be visiting in Las Vegas, a trip to the Wynn for their buffet is a must-do to be sure.

Each station was a practical gourmet lover's dream. The buffet had everything. Red snapper, mahi mahi tuna, salmon, crab legs, peeled, ready to eat shrimp. There were lamb chops, cooked the way you like them, and prime rib that was ever so tender and juicy. Braised lamb, braised veal, fabulous thinly cut pork chops that were just amazing.

Even the vegetables were to die for. Specifically, the grilled asparagus was absolutely mouth-watering and fantastic. And of course, the waitstaff was very helpful, attentive and courteous as well. I don't usually generally feel a need to tip at a buffet, but the service here was exemplary to be sure.

The casino at the Wynn is beautiful as well, though for me, gambling there was not something I was entirely interested in. Call me cheap, but I like an abundance of penny slots. I'm not in Las Vegas to make money, I'm just there to have fun, and the machines at the Wynn seem to take money a bit more quickly than the other casinos, and they have less penny slots.

All in all an experience well worth it at the Wynn.

READ ON, MORE BY SPRINGBOARD:
After The Great Recession
Mex-Italian Tilapia
Grilled Pork Roast

American Flag Should Be Made in America

2010-06-09T10:49:00.000-07:00

It's not a very big request is it? I mean, the American flag is our symbol. It stands for everything we stand for as a country. It seems to me that to ask that at least to have the American flag proudly made in the U.S.A. is a very small request indeed.

Oh, I get it's about money. And I understand that there are a ton of people who are going to disagree with me on the grounds that globalization is as much a part of America as perhaps apple pie is.

Still, with unemployment still at such high levels, I've said it a thousand times we need something here in this country. An American flag that proudly waves, proudly made here on our soil? Worth gold if you ask me.

It's not just about protectionism really. It's not about free markets and globalization. It's about American pride. It's about American patriotism. Nothing pains me more to see those beautiful red, white, and blue stars and stripes, and then see the words Made in China.

Call me anal retentive. It's okay. As I said in my blog about onion prices, I've been called that before. It's no sweat off my back. I'll not shed a single tear.

But neither will I buy a flag that is not made here if I can help it.

READ ON:
Where Can I Buy An American Flag
Compostable Potato Chip Bags
The Gift of Heartfelt Sentiment
PROFILE OF A PATRIOT

What Happened To Onion Prices?

2010-06-02T10:15:00.000-07:00

It seems like a silly thing to write a blog about, but as a guy who absolutely loves his onions, when the prices for onions have nearly doubled in the last month or so, this just really gets my goat. I don't know about how things go in your house, but in my house? Onions are a staple. I use onions in nearly every single dish I cook. I use onions on my sandwiches, and onions go in my salad as well.

Still, I also happen to be one of those guys who watches prices very carefully. Call me anal retentive, I don't care. It wouldn't be the first time I've been called that. And in watching those prices I also have set prices in my head for how much I'm ultimately willing to pay for an item.

Pork, for example, stands around under $2 a pound. Regular beef stuff (unless we're talking about steak or something like that) I'll fork over no more than $3 a pound. I'm a sale stocker too. When things go on sale, so long as it's not something sure to perish in any short period of time, I scoop it up right quick, and in whatever quantity I can. Especially if it happens to be an item I use a lot of.

And when prices bump up above what I'm ultimately willing to pay for them I stop buying them. I boycott them. Sometimes painfully so. In the case of the onion situation, I've not been able to outright stop using them...

But I sure do buy them in much smaller quantities, and I have avoided using them in all of my dishes.

So adamant am I on this type of thing that I once went without ground beef for nearly two years. At the time it went for around 99 cents per pound—and was at least on sale for that price nearly all the time. When it bumped up to $1.19 I said no thanks to it. Then it bumped up to $1.39, and soon thereafter $1.59. I refused to buy it. I've since changed my price to around $1.79-$1.99 depending on whether it is ground chuck, or ground round, or ground beef.

I wonder sometimes if they get it. The marketers? Do they get it? Am I the only one who changes his buying habits according to the price? I mean, in this case I am sure there is something that has happened to have caused the onion prices to have doubled. But still. Do they get that I'm buying less? Will this help drive the prices down? Will onions ever go back to their old prices?

Or will I have to wait two years before I break down and change my price threshold?

Birther Argument Will Bear No Fruit

2010-05-26T12:56:00.000-07:00

Amazingly, this is an argument that still continues on. There are still plenty of folks pondering the question as to whether or not President Obama was born here in the United States—questioning whether he's even eligible to be the president.

It is an argument that no doubt will find its way into the campaign circles by some. I think the entire birther argument, however, is one that will bear no fruit.

Look, I fully grasp the importance of the "why" for some people. The position of the president is no small matter. This is arguably the most powerful position in the entire world. Still, in the grander scheme, as things stand right now, I think the question has about as much merit as the question that was posed as to whether or not George W. Bush was really the president based on the election, and the fact that the courts ultimately made the final decision.

Whether we love it or hate it, President Obama is the president of the United States. So was Bush. So, rather than focus on the birther argument, we need to focus on the issues.

There is the thought that some pose that perhaps the White House is trying to hide something. A lot of documents and other things have been sealed. True enough. Why would the Obama administration want to keep the records sealed? Because it means if we are talking about the question of where the president was born, we won't be talking about the issues that very much need to be at the fore of every campaign discussion we have. Make no mistake, those who cite the birther argument will very quickly be labeled wack-jobs, and guess what? That will stick before anything else does.

That will bear fruit for the democrats. That will bear fruit for the Obama administration's campaign to remain in office in 2012.

I want to be very clear about this. The birther question is one for history to take a look at. It has no place in the upcoming debates. Nor does it have any real basis for discussion in my opinion. And again, it will absolutely detract from the real issues that plague us.

We've frankly got much bigger fish to fry if you ask me.

If you want Barack Obama back in office in 2012, make the birther argument the top issue in the campaign. He'll win. I guarantee it. Focus on the issues of his presidency, and he'll be out. Mark my words.

25,000 More People Out of Work Last Week

2010-05-20T07:41:00.000-07:00

I think it's terrible that the jobless numbers rose by the largest amount in over 3 months. Still, I think we have to get it into our mindsets that this is going to happen. We're letting these numbers rip the stock market to shreds, and we're acting surprised when we see that people are still having difficulty finding and keeping work. Companies are not hiring, in fact they are firing.

This is the reality. No news here.

We're not out of the woods yet. We're not going to be out of the woods for a long time to come. Things simply don't happen lickity-split. We have to have patience and sensibility with regard to this situation. Until people have a sense of security about where their next dollar is going to come from, there is going to be a holding back from spending. That's going to curtail demand. And that curtailed demand is going to put pressure on companies who may want to hire more workers.

You can't do it, and they are not going to do it (that is, hire workers) if customers aren't buying their products or services.

Unemployment numbers are abysmal. I don't like them anymore than the next guy. But patience, I think, is in order here. And again, sensibility. We can't keep reacting to the news like it's news. And by the way, the only reason the numbers improved over the last three months or so was because of the hired census workers. That was at least a large part of it.

So, weren't we simply ripe for a little setback? Like what's going on in the stock market right now. Weren't we simply ripe for that too?

The Grandview Resort Las Vegas

2010-05-19T08:48:00.000-07:00

I don't mind a sales pitch. I understand a little bit about marketing. I also follow business, and I know how important it is to capture the attentions of potential customers. After all, no business could ever survive without its customers.

Still, there is a fine line, I think, between marketing and just being a flat-out pest.

My wife and I recently took a trip to Las Vegas, Nevada, and stayed at the Excalibur. We flew Southwest airlines and took a Showtime shuttle to the hotel. We had an early flight, and so when we got to the hotel it was too soon before check-in. We went through the casino, luggage in tow, and headed for the bag storage. Walking past the registration desks, we were approached by a woman, "How long will you be in Vegas?"

"Till Sunday," I told her.

"Come with me," she said and walked us over to another desk a few feet away.

We were offered a choice between two tickets to a show, or $100 worth of gambling money which could be used in any casino where the MGM Player's Club card was accepted and two buffets at the Excalibur. All we had to do was sit through a presentation for a new resort in Las Vegas, The Grandview, which is a time share, and have a look around the place.

All fine and dandy. It's not really my thing. But I let my wife decide and she decided if we couldn't check in yet anyway, and we'd get a few things free, why not? What did we have to lose?

Well, nothing really. Though we did have to cough up $40 right off the bat. $20 would be returned to us at the end along with the rewards.

We sat through the presentation, and checked out the condos, and listened to the spiels. I won't get into the details. We all know what a time share is. We also know what it is not. All I will say is that we politely said "No thank you" to at least 3 people before they finally let us go and we were able to collect our rewards—which we did get.

The time share deal was a bogus one. The presentation was weird at best. But my problem was more with the fact that throughout our stay we were approached by the Grandview people on the casino floor at the Excalibur at least 25 times in 4 days and 3 nights. It probably would have been a much higher number had we spent our entire time on the Excalibur's casino floor—but it's Vegas, and there's myriad casino's to choose from. So we went to others.

The Grandview folks were at the Luxor as well, I should note.

Again, I don't mind being thrown a sales pitch. Business is business. And no matter what my thoughts may be on time shares, it's a business, and there are customers who enjoy them. There is a market. And if you want to fill rooms, you have to market them.

But I will say this. The experience left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

I like the Excalibur. It's a nice hotel. The staff was courteous. The room was nice. The price was right. And they have an amazing casino and the upstairs section between the Excalibur and the Luxor is very convenient with McDonald's, Starbucks, Krispy Kreme and whatever else you may fancy, including Pizza Hut.

But when you have to constantly say no to someone who approaches you it becomes annoying. When it's repeated over 25 times? It's extremely annoying. Excalibur should be aware that it has customers too. It needs to keep those customers coming back. I'll likely stay there again. But this is strike one. In this case there are only two strikes allowed. If my next stay at the Excalibur is riddled with sales people at every door, and at every turn, I will not stay there again.

As for The Grandview Resort Las Vegas? It's a scam. It may not seem that way in the beginning. But once you reach the end of it, it becomes all too clear.

CHECK OUT MORE BY SPRINGBOARD ON HUBPAGES

Profile Page: Table of Contents

FOX FORBIDDING HANNITY TAPING AT TEA PARTY EVENT WAS RIGHT DECISION

2010-04-16T13:59:00.000-07:00

Fox News' recent decision to forbid Sean Hannity from taping his popular nightly show from a Cincinatti tea party event, after learning that the event's organizers were charging attendees for a chance to be closer to the Fox News talking head during the taping, is a good one in my opinion. According to various reports, attendees were being charged between $5 and $20, depending upon how close to the Fox star they wanted to be, for the opportunity. Media Matters, a liberal media outlet, cited that Hannity was also directing supporters through his own personal website to a link where they could buy tickets to attend the rally.

Even Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp., which also owns the Fox News channel, got in on the discussion, telling reporters that he felt it was not appropriate for Fox News to be associated with any current movement.

That assertion makes perfect sense to me. News media is there to cover an event. Not to drive one. If anyone need any proof of this, one need look no further than nearly the entire coverage by liberal media circles of the presidential campaign of Barack Obama.

Fox News prides itself on being fair and balanced, and while there are plenty of people on the left who like to try and portray Fox as an "arm of the republican party," as had been strongly suggested by the Obama administration back when the big war with Fox was underway, it is simply not true. Anita Dunn, on the White House communications team, practically was made famous by making this very claim—we won't even get into the Chairman Mao comment, but it clearly erases any credibility on her part if you ask me.

It is important, in my view, that media remain as biased as it possibly can. Wherever there are people involved, you will always have some ideology injected into the discussion, and into the news coverage. That's undeniable. And clearly guys like Sean Hannity are no strangers to being involved with a particular political party—certainly that will have some bearing on their commentary. But they also clearly label themselves for what they are. Commentators. Not journalists.

But having Hannity directly associated with the tea party movement via Fox News pushes the envelope. And if you think about, I'm inclined to even offer Hannity a little bit of a shame on you for this one. Don't you think MSNBC and all the other left wing loons like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are going to eat it right up if they actually tape a television show at a conservative event?

Quite frankly, I'm thinking as well that if MSNBC were to tape a show from an obvious left wing group, no matter what it was, Fox News would as well find that to be an affirmation of bias. Why would we want to be associated in the same light?

MORE OPINION BY SPRINGBOARD:
TOYOTA AND TIGER HAVE A LOT IN COMMON
Religion Is Not Necessary
Just Say No To NoKo

STARVIN' THE DANDELIONS

2010-04-16T12:23:00.000-07:00

I've got this notion that if you pull off the tops of dandelions that they'll starve. It's sort of like taking away someone's mouth, if you think about it. The bees can't come along and pollinate, and well, isn't the flower part where a lot of the food action is in a dandelion? I don't know, really. I'm not a scientist by trade, and certainly by the looks of any plant I've ever been on the side of trying not to kill, it's clear I'm not a botanist either.

Perhaps the word butcher would be a more suitable fit.

I'm sure I look like a bonafide damned fool trekking through the yard with my pail in hand, plucking off those yellowy flower tops. Then again, it's always a mighty dandy site (no pun itended) to look across the freshly plucked yard and see only patches of green.

Voila! Success. Take that you damned wicked weeds!

I laugh all the time at my neighbor who bothers to pay those guys who come along and spray chemicals on his grass, and then put up those nifty little white signs that read "Treated Lawn—Keep Off Grass." Even if I must concede that he does, in fact, have the best looking lawn on the block.

But I've got the way, plucking those dandelions out of my own lawn. I need pay no one. I need no special dandelion expunging chemicals. Starvin' the little bastards is what I do. And it's free, aside from my time, and depending on the day, maybe just a tiny crick in my back from all that bending down.

At least that's my thought. That is, until the next day. Then the laughter stops. As I walk out and peer over the green landscape, only to find that they've returned. The dandelions. There they are like tiny yellow soldiers standing afoot in my lawn. I cry foul. I feel like a fool. Defeat is swift. Damnit all!

But not for long.

For I've got the power of my wits, and my pail is empty. And just as the day before, I begin picking them off one by one, tossing the little yellow bulbs into the pail. Hah, hah, hah, I've got you! A sinister grin forms on my lips. I'll win this fight. Eat your heart out Mr. Neighbor with your pristine green lawn.

You see, I've got this notion that if you pull off the tops of dandelions they'll starve.

ALSO BY JIM BAUER:

TO KILL A FLY
LOTTERY PAYOUT: THE DREAM OF THE BIG WIN
USS ENTERPRISE (CVN-65): A LOOK BACK

THE GOD IN SCHOOL LOOPHOLE

2010-04-09T10:52:00.001-07:00

I'm not a religious guy at all. Still, I am a conservative, and I absolutely do subscribe to America, its traditions and values, and while I do not believe that prayer should be allowed in schools, that the word God certainly does have its place in some context. Invoking God in the pledge of allegiance for example. And if a student wishes to invoke God or their religion in a speech on the school grounds, that should well be allowed as well. That's really a part of free speech is it not? And it's different from teaching religion, certainly that's true. Invoking something religious will not create converts, and so long as the invocation is done without being a sermon I don't see anything wrong with it.

A story I read recently was really fun to read because it shows us one small loophole around policies that go too far, such as using the word God in schools. I think you'll get a kick out of it, and certainly will find it inspiring as well. I give a very big thumbs up to the graduating class in this story.

The Sneeze

DOW 11,000

2010-04-08T06:56:00.000-07:00

I remember a while back I tried to start a stock picking blog. Not that I'm a Wall Street elite or anything like that, but I do play the market, and I do know a little bit about it. I'm certainly not giving Warren Buffet a run for his money in case you may be wondering. Still, I do all right. Though the title I chose was sort of a silly one looking back on it. What in the hell was I thinking?
The Nail Biting Stock Picker.

I really had to ask myself who in their right mind would follow a guy who picks stocks like that? Nail biting doesn't really elude a sense of confidence does it? I mean, it would be like hopping into a taxi with the moniker White Knuckled Cab Service on the door.

No, I don't think I'd go with that service either.

Still, getting it right can be a difficult prospect. There's so much going on in the markets everyday, up one and down two, and the news is quick. And there's a ton of it. Throughout the day tons and tons of news hits the newsrooms and bounces around the Internet sites, and all of it pulls and tugs a little bit this way and a little bit that way.

I call it the dance. And it makes me laugh sometimes. Because it seems that the news sways. Just a few days ago we get this new jobs number out, and guys sit at a round table and start hemming and hawing about this being great. Best numbers in a long time. Ah, forget the fact that 46,000 of that 160,000 were newly hired census workers. But the numbers looked good. Not the end of the road for trouble in the jobs sector, but better. The market rallies.

And then today we get a spike in unemployment claims.

We're dancing. We really are. One day spike in new home starts and the market gets a lift. The next day a report comes out that we have seen a rise in foreclosures yet again.

Right now the markets are just up against that 11,000 number. We're doing the dance with it.

MORE BLOGS AND OPINION:

Get Smart And Just Do It
Washington Tools Offers Wing Nuts

OF COURSE TIGER SHOULD RETURN TO GOLF

2010-03-29T12:21:00.000-07:00

The big question rolling around, now that Tiger Woods will apparently play in the Masters, is should he? I ask why shouldn't he play? No one is going to deny that the recent infidelities of Tiger Woods were horrible. His reputation is forever going to be haunted by his sexual escapades. But at the end of the day he is a golfer, and that is all.

I say, let the cameras roll, let the commentators comment, let the tabloids dig for and spill all the bean they want to. To Tiger I say ignore it all and just swing the club. Swing the club and pay no attention whatsoever to what people think. The news teams, the fans, the booing audience members (and you know they'll show up). Put on the same blinders you put on when you were with all those women. Drown it all out, like you drowned out the fact that you were a married man. Brush it all off.

Just golf. Swing the club and be oblivious.

He won't get the big endorsement bucks. His paycheck will be severely shorter than he's usually accustomed to. But so what? The balls will fall where they may, his game is his game, and I'm absolutely certain that he'll play as well as he did before, despite it all. I don't have to agree with his lifestyle to conclude it has nothing to do with the sport he plays.

And so I say yes, he should play in the Masters.

MORE OPINION BY SPRINGBOARD:

PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE PARTY OF CAN'T
Just Say No To NoKo

THREATENING OUR ELECTED LEADERS SOLVES NOTHING

2010-03-28T08:58:00.000-07:00

The American people are angry. After all the polls clearly indicated that the majority of the American people did not want this health care reform bill that ultimately was passed, it passed anyway. The president and the democrats in the Congress went forward clearly knowing that at least 52% of the population opposed the bill.

But is it appropriate to direct that anger at our elected leaders through death threats? Through violence? Should we decide that beating down our elected leaders is the answer? Of course not. We've got to get it together. We need to direct our anger appropriately and effectively. This kind of reaction will only make us look like crybaby buffoons.

Look, we said it when Bush was determined to be our president after all the debacle over chads and whatever else—it is what it is. So let's move on and get on with the business of the people and stop bickering about what is. We need to take our own advice. The deal is done, it stinks to high heaven, we all know that all too well, but here is where are, and now what we need to do is to focus on what we do next to appropriately and effectively make things better tomorrow.

The fact is that whatever we think about our current elected leaders, ultimately I think it is an absolutely fair statement to say that our system of government works. The Congress and the President of the United States got this one terribly wrong. Of that there is no debating. This big fucking deal, as the vice presdent so eloquently put it, is going to cost us far more than just an arm and a leg to be sure. We're in for one hell of a debt dealing ride that could make a swingset do loop the loops like a roller coaster. The dems clearly did this vote with their fingers crammed deep in their ears.

We cannot fairly measure our system of government based on this one bill, even if it's a big one. Even if it's a disastrous one. Literally sending our elected leaders to the guillotine may sound enticing, but...

We can vote. That's what we can do. And we'll have just such an opportunity coming around this November to send a loud and clear message that the American people are not happy with what's gone down. This is our proper discourse. Waving fists, raising bats, or sending idle threats against our elected officials when things don't go our way is not the answer. It's frustrating. At times it can be downright maddening. But to strongarm the process? Even if they did it?

How can we expect our elected officials to make the right choices and vote accordingly if they have to do so in fear? Fear only serves to taint and corrupt the system even further. Let our politicians fear their jobs when they get it wrong or ignore the people. Not their lives.

MORE OPINION ON THE HEALTH CARE BILL:

ALL WE NEED IS ANOTHER BIG "EFFING" DEAL
DESPITE IT ALL, HEALTH CARE BILL PASSES

JESSE JAMES DOES A TIGER WOODS

2010-03-26T09:29:00.001-07:00

Can anybody say it with me? Here we go again. A very short while ago Tiger Woods was all over the headlines about his many escapades with women who seemed to come out the woodwork, and now we've got Jesse James in the same boat, with the numbers continuing to grow. Whether or not Jesse James can reach Tiger Wood's level numbers is yet to be seen, but I don't think I'd personally be all that surprised if that were to fast become the case.

In one sense it's hard to believe these guys would ever want to cheat on the women they've had the pleasure of knowing so well. Elin Nordegren is absolutely beautiful. And so is Sandra Bullock. Besides the fact that Bullock also happens to be cute as a button to boot.

But fame and money do funny things. So does power. So does the idea that one is privelaged, or gifted in a particular way. These guys have all of these things in their corner which only serve to make temptation a bit greater. They are desirables too. And men, like women, love to be wanted.

Let's not forget that men love sex as well, and with such availability, it would seem almost too difficult to resist. Like a kid in a candy store. Or, perhaps consider this. If you came into a store every single day and saw that the register was wide open and no one was looking, no one was there to catch you, and you said no many, many times...

Wouldn't the open register prove too tempting? I mean, if you knew for a fact that you could take the money out of it and not get caught, wouldn't it become too difficult to resist?

I'm not condoning the actions of either of these guys. It's deplorable to say the least. But still, I think I can understand, at least to a point, how the mistake is made.

READ MORE BY SPRINGBOARD:

TOYOTA AND TIGER HAVE A LOT IN COMMON
ALL WE NEED IS ANOTHER BIG "EFFING" DEAL

HOW DO I MAKE FACEBOOK CHAT EMOTICONS

2010-03-25T06:30:00.000-07:00

I think it's at least fairly safe to say that most everyone who uses the Internet also happens to at least have a profile on Facebook. It's become a very popular place for all sorts of personality types, and is used by many to get out ideas and to network. Mainly it's just a great place to keep up with the folks in our lives who we happen to be closest to.

For now, it's the "in" thing to do.

One of the things we like to do on Facebook is chat, and because of that, emoticons, as they are commonly called, have become a very big part of the english language. Emoticons of all sorts have even made their way into every day writing—much to the chagrin of many, mind you.

But how do you make them? The emoticons, that is? Here's a great article I found on HubPages which shows all of the variations. There's probably many more than you thought there were.

HOW TO MAKE FACEBOOK CHAT EMOTICONS

Facebook Chat Emoticons

SIRIUS XM MUST FOLLOW THROUGH ON REVERSE STOCK SPLIT

2010-03-24T07:37:00.000-07:00

For the second time, Sirius XM has received notice from Nasdaq that their stock could be delisted if it does not remain above $1 per share for 30 consecutive days. In a way I find myself puzzled, considering that the company's board has already approved a reverse stock split to hike the price up. The company says it will do what they feel is best for the shareholders. My great wonder is what good delisting would do for the shareholders. Part of the thought is that if, for example, the company were to suddenly decide it may be better positioned as a private company—this is conjecture entirely, the company has not spoken a word about such a thing—then presumably they would have to issue a tender offer to current shareholders. In my own case, considering my cost basis, which I will not disclose, I'd lose an enormous amount of money on my position. I have a suspicion that a great many others would stand to be in the same boat. Being traded on the OTCBB isn't something I think would bode well for the stock either.

Sure. It's an investment. There are no guarantees. My cost basis is not the concern of the board. Nor is the cost basis of any other investor. I could have averaged down. Perhaps I even should have averaged down. The prices certainly are far below my cost basis at this current price point. And obviously the fact that I have not sold my shares, despite all that's happened with this stock over the years, indicates that I believe the stock is undervalued. In my mind it's obvious to me that the company has a future. That's why I've kept my money put up to this point.

So, what's in my best interest, as much as I don't like reverse stock splits, I think it is to do exactly that. Reverse split the shares and put the share price around $5. It's not to say that it solves the issues the company has that has managed to drag the share price down and keep it down. But it would create value, and it would keep the stock trading on the Nasdaq. And let's face it. Even though a reverse stock split may meet with some bad press because it's considered a sign of weakness within the company, but so would a delisting from the Nasdaq do that.

My own thoughts are that the current price is part of the reason the stock is having trouble. Investors and traders don't like stocks that trade at such low prices. It signals to them that there are deep problems, and it invariably increases the risk to the investor's investment.

But there are positives here. The company had some help, and some interest, from Liberty Media a while back, and I think it has used the money well. Car sales have increased, and this has helped to allow them a little bit more room for growing their subscriber base. They've expanded their business a bit outside just cars. And the company was finally able to show a profit in the 4th quarter after a year of losses. These are all good things. These are things that should have allowed the stock to trade above $1 for longer than it did after it released earnings.

I think, as painful as it is, a reverse stock split is the best answer shareholders can get right now. If the company is solid, and I think that it is, then the reverse stock split can simply be considered to be priced into the stock, and shouldn't be a negative factor in the future of the company.

MORE BY SPRINGBOARD:

SPRINGBOARD ON THE 5 O'CLOCK NEWS
Religion Is Not Necessary

MORE ON SIRIUS XM:

Serious Satellite Radio is Sirius' Starmate5
Serious Satellite Radio is Sirius' Starmate 5 - Part 2

STEP OUTTA THE CAR, COPPER

2010-03-09T08:22:00.001-08:00

It seems odd, sometimes, that when someone pulls out a gun, there's not a cop for miles around to put a stop to what might just become a very bad situation. Yet, speed up to 57 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone, and there they are. The cops. Right behind you in a flash with blue and red lights flashing and sirens blaring.

I'm not saying that cops aren't necessarily doing their jobs. I'm not even making light of the fact that cops have a very difficult job. The job of dealing with people in any capacity is difficult—just ask anyone who works in retail or some other customer service capacity. Go talk to a waitress.

But there is this underyling thought that cops are less and less there to protect and serve us. There seems to be something else that is the motivator, here. I think it's money. That's what it comes down to is money. You see, real criminals do not pay fines. For that you need to catch speeders. For that you need to find someone driving along without a seat belt on.

How many times do we drive by a squad car just sitting on a sidestreet between intersections? How many times do we see a cop sitting alongside the highway? Why aren't they driving around? Why aren't they getting out of their cars and walking into a McDonald's to make sure kids are behaving appropriately when their parents aren't around? Or looking for someone in a store acting suspiciously?

Crime is a product of opportunity. If cops made their presense more visible everywhere, I'm inclined to believe there would be less crime. When a cop may potentially be in a grocery store aisle at any given moment, one may think twice about stuffing that item in their coat. Or pulling out a gun. Or even kissing and half undressing their girlfriend in a fast food restaurant.

We need to have police out and about and on the beat. On the streets, sidewalks, in the stores and restaurants. We need them policing for criminals. Real criminals. Not just policing for minor offenses for which there are fines attached.

Springboard recommended reading:

Immorality (at McDonald's)!?
Do You See What I See?

EAT YOUR PORK SLOWLY PROVIDES A GOOD LAUGH

2010-03-05T12:18:00.000-08:00

Rummaging around the Internet can be a bit of a humdinger of a good time of sorts, because getting around, you never really quite know what you're going to find out here. There's just a ton of crazy videos, whacky pictures, and sometimes just downright plain silly stuff. People love to share a lot of silly stuff. If you ask me, TV's got nothing on this Internet thing. Not even close.

I'm sure my wife would argue with me about that. I spend far more time on the Internet than she does, and she's a bit of a couch potato when it comes to the boob tube (sorry babe, I love you!). A lot of people tell me I spend far too much time out here on the old information superhighway, and so it's quite possible I may have formulated a tiny bit of bias. Hell, I've been here so long I even still call it the information superhighway. For Pete's sake I still type in "w-w-w!"

Of course, my main interest tends to be on the order of politics. Man, I spend a lot of time on that stuff, chewing it all up, trying to get a feel for all the subtle little flavors tinging my tongue, and then trying to spit it all back out in little deciphered bits and pieces. It's not an easy task, mind you. There's so much crap out on the political landscape it's not even funny.

So, being that I mostly read about politics and write about politics, a word like "pork" becomes a very intriguing one. The phrase "eat your pork slowly," is even more eye-catching as it comes just about the time a little bill happens to be in the process of being shoved through Congress—okay, really there's a couple of little bills in the House right now. One's about health care and one's about jobs. And so that just adds to the intrigue. Yeah, there's enough pork in either one of those two bills to make Smithfield Foods quite the envious ones...if only they could get their hands on just some of that bounty of swine, boy what a business they would have. Nobody does pork like the United States government does.

So when I came along that title, "Eat Your Pork Slowly," I thought for sure I knew what I was getting into. I mean, it's not that I'm unfamiliar with who the writer of the piece is. On HubPages he goes by the moniker tobey100, and he does talk politics.

Of course, when I clicked on through, what I actually landed upon had nothing to do with those two pork-laden bills in Congress right now. There was nothing in there about Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, or even a republican for that matter. Nothing at all. It was a story about a guy by the name of Haskell Sizemore who is a pig farmer who's got a prize pig named Beau. Not any pig mind you. I said a special pig. You see, this special pig actually saved the entire Haskell family from a fire one day. This is a remarkable pig to be sure. The story is good too. On the order of one of those silly things I was talking about earlier. But good silly.

Now, of course, I did just now tell you that this fun little story on the order of silly was not about politics. Then again, maybe it was. Just a little bit. There is a bit of an underying political edge to this little ditty about Haskell Sizemore and his remarkable pig after all. I'll grant you, it's quite subtle. But it is there.

I mean, think about it. Here's this pig that does the grandest of things for Sizemore and his whole family. He puts his own life and livelihood on the line, in a sense, doesn't he? I mean come on, he's a friggin' pig, on a pig farm for God's sake, and we all know what happens to a pig on a pig farm. Why wouldn't he see the pig farmer's house ablaze, yell a couple of glorious "yips," and then open the gates to free his comrades from their inevitable fates? Instead, he see's the pig farmer's house ablaze and then goes to the house and wakes up the whole family and they are saved.

Perhaps old Beau just had an ulterior motive. That could be it. By the way, did I ever tell you that ulterior motives sometimes don't always work out quite the way we expect them to?

Anyway, do you see it just a little bit? The correlation. Maybe it's not quite clear yet. I don't want to give anything away, that would take all the fun out of it. But I bet if you read the story, I'm sure you'll get it. Beau knows exaxctly what I'm talking about. Haskell Sizemore don't get it. But trust me, Beau knows.

READ "EAT YOUR PORK SLOWLY" BY TOBEY100
Eat Your Pork Slowly

IF YOU ARE OLD, YOU ARE OLD, JUST TELL IT LIKE IT IS

2010-03-04T06:46:00.000-08:00

People are simply too damn sensitive nowadays, but I find it surprising when it's the older generation who gets on board the old politcal correctness bandwagon as well. Because that's just not something from the past, that's something that's unfortunately developed only recently as we've become more and more a really touchy-feely kind of society.

The old man said, "I don't like the word 'senior,' I think it has a bit of a negative feel to it."

I can sympathize with not wanting to be called certain things. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to clearly understand that there are certain things that should very well be off limits, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with political correctness. Those "off limits" things would be obvious derogatory terms. In the case of an old man, calling him a 'geezer,' for example, is probably not a very nice thing to do, and should rightly be refrained from. Calling an old man an old man? Well, that's a bit different isn't it? If you are on in the years you are old. Even if old could potentially mean used up or out of useful commission. Old could also mean built better, more solid, or more ornate. An old house has character, for example. Nowadays it's just two-by-fours, cheap walls, and a roof. So in this context, being referred to as "old" might even be a compliment.

Taking it one step further, there are some black folks who like to be called black. Others like to be called African-American. Though I've run into some black folks who hated to be called African-American, and others who have hated to be called black.

The fact is that this kind of thinking just serves to make the world a very difficult place in which to live together, peacefully, and harmoniously. It makes people seem too fragile, and certainly unapproachable. Perhaps if I don't know what to call you, I just won't talk to you at all.

One wonders why, in today's society, people barely bother to even say a simple 'hello' when they pass by you on the street, or in a grocery store, or in a parking lot. You'd be lucky to get even a smile. After all, someone might be offended you've said hello to them. They might become suspicious you've smiled at them.

"Excuse me, but do I know you?" As though that is somehow a prerequisite to acknowledging the very presense of another human being.

To the offended old man and subscribers of political correctness I say this; this is not the kind of world I want to live in. I don't think it's the kind of world you grew up in. And it's this kind of thinking, this kind of immediate offense that is quite literally ripping apart the fabric of our communities across the country, and shame on us for letting it get this way.

TIGER WOODS WILL TALK

2010-02-17T13:44:00.000-08:00

It appears Tiger Woods will be coming out of silence on Friday to talk to fans and media cirlcles about his infidelities, and to make amends. I think he will also outlay his plans for his future in golf. Even though he said he would take a hiatus, I think it's safe enough an observation to make, that golf runs in Tiger Wood's veins. Stepping off the golf course for a little while, and waiting for the sex scandal to quiet down a bit, I think was a good idea. This is not to say that coming out and speaking to fans and media will immediately reinvigorate the Tiger Woods brand. Mending such deep wounds will take quite a lot of time, great golfer or not.

I do think it's best for him to move on from the situation, however, and talk openly about his feelings and perhaps give some insight into his life and problems that may have led up to the scandal. Not that it's really anyone's business other than him and his wife. But being in the public eye in the way that Tiger Woods is, means he can't keep entirely silent if he wants to further his career. And whatever he chooses not to disclose, everyone knows that other media, such as the tabloids, would exact due dilligence into trying to fill in the blanks. Something they're not that terrible at either.

No one knows exactly what Tiger will say, or if he's even going to hint at returning to the golf course. What is clear is that he will at least be making an apology, and even if that's all he does, I think that's a good thing. If nothing else, it's a good start. Once the silence is broken, the real mending can begin.

Springboard on HubPages
TOYOTA AND TIGER HAVE A LOT IN COMMON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ISSUE OF THE FALLING SKY

IF YOU SMOKE, YOU'RE FIRED

2010-02-10T11:23:00.000-08:00

John Tesh is a bit of nutcase, if you ask me. I think he's long ago gone off the deep end to be sure. I'm not exactly certain of the exact moment that became true, but I just know that it happened. I think it's important to just get that out in the open right off the bat.

The other day I happened to be tuned in to his radio show (I didn't pick it by the way. My wife had it on), and he began rambling on about a little trend developing whereas companies may have actually started extending their no smoking policies to not just in the workplace, but at home as well. In such a company an employee can actually be tested for nicotine, and if the test result comes back positive, the employee could be fired.

This is an absolutely ridiculous idea to be sure, and to be sure as well, John Tesh seemed to be for the idea. Not surprising. I don't think John Tesh ever quite sees the forest for the trees, you know.

The big question I have for any company who would even consider such a dumb idea is this; where does it end? How far will you ultimately go into my private life?

Oh sure, the companies who've come up with this bright little idea cite all kinds of reasons for justifying it. "Smokers costs companies a lot of money," Tesh said, reading from a study. According to that study smokers tend to require more days off, are less productive, have more health issues and burden the companies with higher insurance costs.

All true. I won't argue that. But there are too many other things that employees do outside of work that can cause all of those same problems. What if a worker decides to play a little football over the weekend? He may break an arm or sprain an ankle. Surely he'll have to go and see a doctor about that. Surely he might miss some time off from work as a result. He may even miss several days in the case of something broken.

And of course the list goes on. Greasy food causes heart disease. Drinking causes crashes, hangovers, and sometimes people become alcoholics. Should we bar workers from engaging in these activities too because it may cost the company some money in lost time or productivity or health costs?

The idea is simply dumb, and I hope anyone employed by a company like this would have the power to quit and take their services elsewhere, and that any customer who buys goods or services from such a company would promptly boycott them.

Otherwise this will just be the tip of the iceberg.

FORD AND GM SALES RISE, TOYOTA DECLINES

2010-02-02T12:25:00.000-08:00

Ford recently reported that its sales for the month of January were up 25%. GM's sales saw a 14% boost. Toyota, on the other hand, flopped due to the recent recalls and credibility problems. In the case of Ford Motor Company and GM, the boost in sales were helped mainly by the bettering economy. But I think, even though the Toyota debacle didn't develop really until the latter half of the month, anyone who may have been considering buying a Toyota could easily have been suddenly pursuaded to do otherwise, concerned over the safety issues with Toyota's cars.

In any event, it's clear to understand why Ford tops the sales gains. It's the leader of the pack when it comes to American automobiles, and surely this has been bolstered by the fact that many Americans are mad over bad business practices and costly bailouts—of which both GM and Chrysler took. Ford did not. And now it's doing very well to say the least. Americans can appreciate that. This is a not a taxpayer funded company. Moreover, it's not Barack Obama Motor Company either.

Say what you want, but any affiliation with the Obama administration hurts business.

Still, I don't want to take away from the real reason people are looking to Ford more than they have in quite a while. One is in support of American jobs. Another is that Ford has been making quite a name for itself, restyling its cars and vamping up safety efforts. These cars are the best running, best looking, safest cars to wear the Ford nameplate in a very long time, and people are taking notice. The F-150 has certainly been a top selling truck for the company for the past 30 years, and while GM was indeed making some headway there for a minute, they've clearly lost their running. Ford still reigns here. The new F-150 Raptor is sharp as hell, too, and if you haven't seen it already, it's worth checking out Ford's website and taking a look.

Ford Motor Company continues to make a wonderful car to own and drive, and I can't say it loudly enough, it's a stock to own as well. Ford may well be the greatest American comeback story of the decade as we go forward, and certainly the company will see its stock price continue to rise.

READ MORE BY SPRINGBOARD ON HUBPAGES

TOYOTA HALTS PRODUCTION
TOYOTA AND TIGER HAVE A LOT IN COMMON

DANNY GLOVER HAS LOST HIS MIND

2010-01-22T10:29:00.000-08:00

He's out of his wits, this Danny Glover. After hearing his remarks recently about Haiti, the American government's response, and Hugo Chavez of all people, I think its clear the man has lost his mind. Who knows if he's always been a left wing junkie...probably has been. Most of those Hollywood types are, of course. It always pains me when these guys get out there and do this as well. I mean, Danny Glover's a good actor, no doubt about that. I enjoyed his performances in the Lethal Weapon movies where he seemed to play a pretty sensible guy.

Danny Glover seems to think we're occupying the country. But then this is what Hugo Chavez seems to be saying as well. "Send doctors Mr. Obama, not soliders," Hugo was quoted as saying.

I think it's safe to say that Haiti has no infrastructure. They also do not have a viable police force nor do they have a military force. They do, however, have corruption en masse. This is the primary reason why American ground forces are there in Haiti to deliver medicine, water and other necessary supplies to the Haitian people in need of it. If they were to simply send doctors, we'd likely have to add their bodies to the growing piles of earthquake victims.

By the way, as for the efforts of America in this whole thing to Mr. Chavez and to Mr. Glover, since 1992 the United States has provided $3 billion worth of aid to Haiti. Now, granted we can argue all day what good it did. But it's still an enormous amount of money no less. We are currently sending $100 million of U.S. taxpayer money as we speak—not to mention the cost of the deployment of troops itself. Mr. Chavez has sent one plane of supplies. One plane! I wonder if anyone on it were doctors?

By the way, might I just point out in closing that long ago I decided to boycott Citgo as it is owned and operated by Chavez and the Venezuelan government. I leave that as a reminder that pumping gas at a Citgo station only serves to serve tyranny.

PROFILE OF A PATRIOT
Profiling in our nation's airports have nothing at all to do with singling people out or denying anyone their civil rights. At the end of the day profiling is about patriotism.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ISSUE OF THE FALLING SKY
Global warming, climate change, whatever we are calling it today, is about putting the human race smack dab in the center of the doomsday scenario. It's meant to scare the hell out of us.

WE ALL HAVE A DOH! MOMENT NOW AND AGAIN

2010-01-15T07:19:00.000-08:00

I sway from the usual rant today just to reflect on one of those Homer Simpson, Doh! moments we all tend to have every now and again. They're never major happenings. Just minor moments in life when you think, man that's just annoying.

It was earlier in the week when the wife and I had decided it might be nice to catch a bite out to eat on Friday (that would be today, of course). She was at the kitchen table going through the coupon wallet, and taking out the expired ones to throw away.

"Hey, there's one in here for Red Lobster—$4 off two dinner entrees," my wife told me and tossed the coupon over to me.

"Oh, well, maybe we could catch Red Lobster Friday then," I told her.

She nodded, and then asked me when it expired. Doh! It would expire on Thursday. But no problem, I told her, we'd just go out to dinner on Thursday instead of Friday. It really didn't matter to me anyway when we went out to eat.

So Thursday came along, the wife got home from work, and she just wanted to change a bit before we left. As we were headed out the door to leave for the restaurant she asked me, "You've got the coupon?"

"Yeah, it's in my wallet. I put it in there so I'd be sure not to forget it."

We arrived at the restaurant, it would be a 25 minute wait for a table we were told, and they handed us one of those little vibrating things. Not too bad. We've waited longer many times before. If it would have been Friday like we had originally planned the wait surely would have been quite a lot longer. It's always like that at Red Lobster, you know.

So, like most people do we just ambled over to the bar and ordered up a couple of drinks. One Samuel Adams on tap for me a Malibu Rum and Coke for the wife. $9.50. Let me tell you, I'm in the wrong line of business. Drink prices are getting a little soaked.

Anyway, we finally got seated and the waitress told us about the fish specials and other particulars. We refreshed our drinks and before she walked away I said "Oh, by the way. I've got a coupon just so you know."

"Fine," the waitress said. "Just present it when you pay and I'll take care of it."

So we sat and talked, the wife and I. We ordered up one of the appetizers. It arrived and we ate it. Our salads came and we ate those. Then the main course, and we gobbled that all up. The waitress came by and asked if we wanted dessert, to which both the wife and I replied (clearly way too full already) no thanks, we'd burst for sure. And so she brought the check and I whipped out the debit card to pay. Waitress came and got it, rung us up, I signed and we headed for the door.

Hitting the cold Wisconsin winter air just outside the Red Lobster the wife remembered. "The coupon," she said. It was a statement.

Dammit. Yes, the coupon. I had forgotten it.

Sure, I could have gone back inside and had the waitress apply it. But it was only $4. Only $4—spoken like I have a couple million in the bank. And it would be time consuming. The place was still busy. It would be a lot of hassle for practically nothing. Instead I simply yelled Doh! in my head, and brushed it off as I walked to the car to get the door for my wife.

FORMER PRESIDENT H.W. BUSH HECKLED

2010-01-14T11:56:00.000-08:00

I think it's deplorable what happened to former president George H.W. Bush at a Houston, Texas pizza restaurant where a man came up to him and began to heckle him, shouting false accusations and profanities. Luckily the president's secret service protection was in tow and they were able to send the heckler on his merry way.

Not that we don't sometimes disagree with our elected officials, including our presidents. But as anything goes in this world, if we want to get our point across, we have to do it respectfully and we simply cannot engage in the use of outright lies to support in favor of our arguments. This is not to say that had the man approached the former president in an intelligent way the president may have sat with him, chatted, and maybe even offered up a piece of pizza to the guy. But what the heckler did only served to make him look like a fool. It invalidated any case he may have had.

My concern over this incident calls me to question, beyond this, whether we may need to have another look at the law that went into effect in 1994 that limits secret service protection for former presidents elected after January 1, 1997 to just 10 years following the end of their terms. I examine it in more detail in my hub, "Bush Heckled At A Restaurant Signals Time to Revisit 1994 Law."

HAITI EARTHQUAKE DEVASTATES AN ALREADY IMPOVERISHED NATION

2010-01-13T08:19:00.000-08:00

The recent 7.0 earthquake that rocked the land in Haiti, an already impoverished nation, has gotten much attention from top celebs, and President Obama has spoken about it as well. In particular Wyclef Jean has begun a foundation with a phone number that people can call to make donations to relief efforts there. You can text "Yele" to 501501 and Wyclef Jean's foundation, Yele Haiti will donate $5 from a charge made to your phone bill. Naturally the American Red Cross and UNICEF are engaging efforts there as well.

On Tuesday the president said "his thoughts and prayers were with the people of Haiti." He has also stated that U.S. Military assistance could be provided if the situation deems it to be appropriate.

The area most affected by the quake was the capital city of Port-au-Prince, which is home to nearly 1.8 million people.

WEAK EARNINGS REPORTED THROUGH HOLIDAYS; WELL DUH!

2010-01-12T06:37:00.001-08:00

Two stories hit the wire this morning, "Stocks lose ground on weak earnings start," and "Small business sentiment drops amid weak holidays," and as of this writing the markets are down about 30 points. But I have to tell you, I find this a little bit puzzling considering that the fact that we are not quite out of the woods on the consumer end of the recession is not new news. Nor are the jobs numbers which are still hovering around 10%. If people aren't working, or still aren't feeling a strong sense of job security they aren't going to spend their money. If you ask me, the recession, and low consumer demand should already be priced into the markets.

So, as things tend to go in these quick markets, it's just a knee-jerk reaction. I've talked about this before as being a time to jump in and take advantage of the overreaction. A long while back I wrote a blog entitled, "Jittery Investors Give Me the Cheaps," which basically was built on the premise that knee-jerk reactions from jittery short term investors typically provide an opportunity to get into a new position more cheaply, or to add shares to an existing position for less money.

Until this economy gets out of the doldrums, I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to take advantage of nervous traders.

FORD TAKES TWO TITLES AT AUTO SHOW, STILL A STRONG BUY

2010-01-11T11:32:00.000-08:00

I've been touting Ford Motor Company for some time. In a recent hub, "Ford Motor Company: An American Gem," I even made the assertion that Ford Motor Company can easily snatch up the spot as the reigning #1 U.S. automaker if it keeps on the path it is currently on. I firmly believe that.

Right now, even as the stock is up substantially from even just a year ago, it's a buy, and I would be taking advantage of any dips this stock allows to add to your position—or start a new one. Even at it's Monday price of around $11.80 per share, I think this stock could easily double in the next 12-18 months.

The fact is that Ford is making great cars. They are making better cars. And they are making cars the American buying public wants. Without question, the company is certainly on the road to profitability, and being the only profitable American automaker is not only telling of their prowess, but advantageous as well. And now they've just snatched up two coveted North American Car and Truck awards at the Detroit Auto Show with the Ford Fusion being named Hybrid of the Year, and the Ford Transit Connect being named Truck of the Year.

This is no small feat, considering that in the 17-year history of the awards, only three times before has one automaker taken home both awards.

Ford is making great strides as a company, and I think they will continue to do so.

BARACK OBAMA MAY ALREADY BE A ONE-TERMER

2010-01-09T08:32:00.001-08:00

Fox News talking head Bill O'Reilly suggested the other day on his show, "The O'Reilly Factor," that if there was one more terrorist attempt made, especially a successful one, the fate of the presidency of Barack Obama would be sealed. In the segment O'Reilly had his regular guest, Dick Morris, join in on the debate, and at first he was in disagreement with O'Reilly's assessment. It wasn't until Bill O'Reilly threw in the word 'successful' that Dick Morris changed his mind. "You've convinced me," he said.

And I think it's true as well. I don't think there's any denying that if we have another attack on American soil by someone associated with Al-Qaeda, Barack Obama will not be elected to a second term. My personal opinion is that he may already be just a one-term president, but that's for another day.

The American people have to feel safe. As it stands right now, Barack Obama is not acting tough enough. He's not sending a clear message to would-be terrorists that we mean business, and you better not mess with us. That's the message he must send loud and clear. These people who are running these terrorist groups will use any sign of weakness to their advantage. I think it's safe to say that Al-Qaeda feared President Bush. They knew there would be dire consequences if an attack were made. Barack Obama has made the argument repeatedly that the prison at GITMO has been used by Al-Qaeda as a recruitment tool. I think the fact that he's decided to close it actually serves to embolden terrorists more. It's a victory for them. When Barack Obama says we will not torture, it is a victory for Al-Qaeda. When people hop onto planes with bombs strapped to their underwear and they get court trials, Al-Qaeda becomes, in their minds, a winner.

Barack Obama is viewed as a weak president, and that's going to hurt his presidency, and it may wind up hurting Americans as well.

ARTIE LANGE'S SUICIDE ATTEMPT RILES STERN

2010-01-08T08:01:00.001-08:00

If anyone has been following the recent news, we're all aware that long time friend and show-pal of Howard Stern, Artie Lange stabbed himself 9 times and was rushed to the hospital in what was an apparent suicide attempt. What's astonishing about this event, aside from the fact that Artie Lange stabbed himself 9 times, it's the outraged reaction we got from Howard Stern himself regarding the suicide attempt after the news got out that it had happened.

Howard Stern told the press on Thursday, "I would love to know who the scumbag is who releases that to the press, because this is a private matter. I don't know what to say. I work with Artie, I love Artie. Everyone has their demons, including myself, but he's wrestling with some serious stuff. When I heard the news it was too much to bear."

According to reports, Artie Lange had 6 hesitation wounds and three deep plunges, obviously indicative a man who is suffering deep emotional problems in his life currently.

But even while I firmly believe everyone is entitled to privacy, and certainly this is a very personal and private matter, Artie Lange is still in the public eye. Howard Stern went on to comment that he was pissed off that someone got paid some money to talk to Page Six of the New York Post about the whole thing.

News would have gotten out anyway. And this is definitely a newsworthy item. All matters are personal when it comes to the lives of celebrities, but it doesn't necessarily mean that certain details will not wind up in a newspaper or on a news program. When Tiger Woods goofed up it was a personal matter between Tiger Woods and his wife, until something was triggered to put it wide in the open—like driving his SUV into a tree at two o'clock in the morning.

In this case it was Artie Lange arriving at a hospital with 9 self-inflcited stab wounds.

AIRPORT PROFILING IS NECESSARY

2010-01-07T08:59:00.001-08:00

As a society we've gotten way too touchy-feely. Political correctness is all the rage, but frankly it's a dangerous path to be on. Since the last terror attempt that happened on Northwest Airlines in Michigan, we are of course revisiting the topic of profiling in our nation's airports. It's a topic that stirs up a ton of emotions, and it continues to be a heavily heated debate. You are either for profiling or against it. There is no real middle ground there.

I get all the ideology surrounding people's rights. I understand that no one wants to be singled out for the color of their skin, or for their religious beliefs, or for any other reason. Still, I think we have to at least do something. Because the reality is that there are groups of people out there who are hell bent on killing us. Those groups happen to be of the Muslim faith, or are from Middle Eastern descent. So, you have to take a closer look at these individuals. It just makes sense.

But I'm not just talking about profiling based on skin color or religion. There are myriad factors to consider in the profiling of someone before they board a plane. Obvious markers should stand out. Is the person originating from a place where there is known terrorist activity? Does the person have a one-way ticket? Are they not carrying luggage with them on the flight? Are they behaving in a suspicious manner; are they sweating, do they have darting eyes, trembling...any number of these things could indicate a problem passenger.

We simply cannot afford to take chances is what I'm saying. The consequences of being too complacent, too touchy-feely, too politically correct will lend itself to more Americans being killed. This last incident was unsuccessful. It should also be a wake up call. The next time we may not be so lucky.

For more on Jim's take on the profiling debate read Jim Bauer's Hub,
"Profile of a Patriot," and drop a comment; Profiling is not about alienating
anyone's rights or singling anyone out. It's about patriotic duty to one's
country.

ENTERPRISE IS NOT JUST A STARSHIP

2009-12-31T08:00:00.001-08:00

Between 1992 and 1996 I served in the United States Navy aboard the real USS Enterprise. The aircraft carrier Enterprise. It was an interesting time for me, to say the least. Especially considering that when I arrived for duty at the ship it wasn't even in the water. Instead it was sitting in dry dock at Newport News Shipbuilding And Drydock Company in Newport News, VA, undergoing a complex refueling and overhaul. Everything onboard was getting a facelift.

Reflecting back, I took the time to write about my experience and provide a little history on what I would say is probably the most recognized ship to ever set sail in U.S. naval history. I think, especially if you are into military stuff, you may enjoy having a read.

You can find the article at http://www.hubpages.com/hub/ussenterprise.

YOU'RE AN IDIOT RECAP

2009-12-19T08:46:00.000-08:00

On October 19, 2008 I wrote in a blog, "stocks are on a blowout clearance the likes of which we have not seen for at least a couple of decades." I went on to say, "this, the great economic crisis of 2008, will have historically proven to have made the riches of those who dared to proceed contrary to the current sentiment." I was referring to the natural tendency of people to panic in a crisis and throw in the towel. I was saying that it was time to buy stocks. Not to sell them. And then I wrote another blog on November 14, 2008 entitled, "In Judge Judy's Words, You're An Idiot." And of course followed that title up with "if you are selling stocks right now." I didn't want to get anyone's panties into a bunch before they even got into my first paragraph.

I think, if you look back, the stock market has rocketed since. If you bought shares in nearly any company you'd have made money. And in my "You're An Idiot" blog I mentioned 7 stocks in particular that I liked, and that I thought would do rather nicely. And so I thought I'd revisit those to see how things went. For each of them I've assumed the value at the close of trading November 13, 2009 had you invested $1,000 on the day I recommended them. And in the interest of full disclosure, I have since sold all of my shares in these stocks with the exception of WSBF.

WSBF $431.19
JPM $1,244.56
MCD $1,132.73
MCS $1,038.56
WWE $1,247.18
MRO $1,298.33
FMX $1,549.69

Considering the year we've had, and that during the period of time in which these stocks are being evaluated, we had higher levels of unemployment, the banks still haven't gotten their act quite together, the credit crunch is still on to some degree and consumers haven't loosened their wallets, these stocks performed rather well. WSBF is, of course, another issue.

What stocks do I like now? Ford Motor Company (F), Sony Corp. (SNE), Brinker International (EAT), Nuveen Equity Premium Opportunity Fund (JSN), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple Inc. (AAPL), and I still like Marathon Oil (MRO). I do not currently own shares in AAPL, AMZN or MRO.

And for a speculative play, I like a bulletin board stock that presently trades for around 90 cents a share. China Tel Group Inc. (CHTL). Definitely one to watch. For full disclosure, I own shares.

THE DEMS ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE WITH H.R. 4314

2009-12-16T12:16:00.001-08:00

There's a bill before Congress that will be voted on soon to allow for the government to increase the debt ceiling to nearly $12.5 trillion, and while I fully understand the gist of the bill, which is to allow for the Federal Government to continue to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, to continue to fund veterans hospitals operations, and to continue to afford payments to be made to social security and medicare recipients—among other things, of course—the fact of the matter is that we do not have any more money to spend.

Granted, Congress asking for more money is nothing new. We've been here too many other times in the past to even begin counting, republican and democrat alike. The government spends money, introduces programs, entitlements, and all sorts of other things. And then the bills come in. The bills have to paid. In short that's how the current democratic leadership are framing their argument—and oh yeah, old ladies will starve, troops will die...here we go again. We asked for all this stuff and now that the bill has come in, somehow we have to be able to pay for it. And the sad truth is that without passing H.R. 4314, we can't do it.

Let us keep in mind that the bill will pass. Poor little old ladies will still get their medicare and their social security checks will still arrive each month in the mail. American troops won't be left to defend themselves with guns but no bullets.

That aside, we have got to come to a very logical conclusion now, don't we? It's because of that fact that I brought up just a couple of paragraphs ago. We do not have any more money to spend.

I side with the republicans on this issue that H.R. 4314 is not the right direction. I also side with the democrats that we have to pay our bills, and so long as the charges have been made and the programs are in need of funding, we're simply going to have to do it. But now is the time for everyone in our Congress to finally sit down and get to the heart of the matter. We cannot continue to simply spend, spend, spend, and then keep on coming back asking for more and more debt to be allowed. We have to form a committee to take a look at government spending, period. Because unless we address the issues of the spending, raising the debt ceiling time and time again will do nothing to help us. It will serve to put more debt onto the backs of each and every American, and it will serve to stunt our continued growth as a nation. This is nothing more than maxing out your credit card bill and then asking the bank to raise your limit so you can keep spending foolishly.

I say the democrats are barking up the wrong tree because they have not included in the bill, a comprehensive examination into current spending, and how we can begin the process of reducing it. There's plenty of room to include the language in the bill. The recent health care bill proves there's no shortage of paper available in Washington. Republicans have several bills that can't even make it to the House floor that at least offer up alternatives to spending. I'm not saying they are the solution or that they are not contributors to the problem, but until someone has a better idea, H.R. 4314 is just more of the same old crap however necessary it may well be in the near term.

AS A MATTER OF FACT COMPANIES IN AMERICA SHOULD BE PATRIOTS

2009-12-07T12:19:00.000-08:00

I am an American company. I am the invention of capitalism. When my country needed me, I built bombs for it. I modified production lines, conserved metals, and even altered my manufacturing processes. I made no arguments against it. I made no cries of hurting my profits. I made no excuses. I sacrificed and made a contribution for a greater good. I did what I had to do for the safety of the country, its people, and its very sovereignty. Because I know I am an American company. I am the invention of capitalism. Therefore, without America I cannot exist. Without a strong America I will not survive. Its protection is as important, if not more, as are my profits.

I write this little ditty as a message to the elites. I write it as a message to America's CEOs. I write it because I'm starting to get the distinct impression that a lot of people who sit at the top have sadly forgotten how it is that they ever had the opportunity to arrive where they are now. Yeah, through hard work. Yeah, through risk taking. I'm not discounting the efforts of anyone, here. I'm a capitalist too. I work hard, I invest my money, I take on some level of risk. Capitalism offers a reward for that. I know well and good that if my life is not the way that I want it to be, that if I am not making the amount of money that I want to make, that if I am not accomplishing to the degree that I want to accomplish, that it is not for lack of opportunity. It's for lack of effort. There is no one who owes me anything.

That is, with the exception of respect and appreciation.

To me those two things represent a fair wage. A clean, safe, and just working environment. It means that if I work hard for you, you'll work hard for me. I'm not saying at all that I want things handed to me on a silver platter. I'm not saying that I want something for nothing. You don't have to kiss my ass. Hey, look. I'm a big boy. I can take it upon myself to put to the very best use everything that I earn. And if not, well, that's my fault. I get that all too well.

I should, of course, respect and appreciate you as well. I should respect and appreciate that I have a job with which to feed my family, put a roof over their head, put clothes on their back, and to even put something aside for a rainy day, a better opportunity, or a shot at being just like you. And I should have no anger, either, that you are where you are. You represent the possibility I have to look forward to if I give my all.

But I'm having a hard time doing that these days because the respect and appreciation part is lacking for me. I'm being reduced. My life is getting harder. My opportunity is increasingly becoming less of a reality.

And hey, I'm making sacrifices too. I'm paying my taxes. Yeah, I'm not paying the bulk. You're right. But I'm not making the bulk either. A 15% snatching of my take siphons a much bigger chunk of real living money than 50% of say, a million. I'm doing what I have to and I understand it's a tough economy. Everyone's feeling the pinch. Yeah, maybe even the elites are in a bit of a pinch...but come on, let's not kid ourselves. You're not really going to tell me that it's the same kind of a pinch are you?

The thing here is that I love my country too. Just like that company in my little ditty above. I am a patriot. I am an American. I want to do my part. That whole American dream thing is important to me.

What American companies are doing today, what the elites are doing today, is unpatriotic. They are taking down Americans one person at a time. They are sending our good jobs away and replacing them with lower paying ones, if they replace them at all. The middle class is all but gone. The dividing line between the rich and the poor is a neon one.

I keep hearing about that risk. All the hard work at the top that's worth the millions in salaries and bonuses. You know, there's a ton of hard work at the bottom too. And if you don't think so, I encourage you to do what the average American does for a year. Live in their shoes. You'll get it, then, that they're not asking for anything that they don't deserve. They earn everything they get and lately they're not getting their due.

The current direction may boost profits. It may make the elite eliter. Eventually, though, it's going to hurt the country. And since we are capitalism, so too will it be hurt. Progress cannot be at the expense of the very people it is supposed to help.

So yes. Companies in America damn well should be patriots. Only this time it's not about a war. It's about it's very people's livelihoods. Patriotism equals success. Success equals profits. For me it really is that simple.

IT'S JUST ABOUT TIME TO RUN FROM GOLD

2009-12-03T06:22:00.000-08:00

It's been a couple of times now that I've read somewhere, or overheard someone shouting that gold is heading for as much as $5,000 an ounce, and I can't help but think to myself that I've heard all this before. Say, back when oil was playing with $160-$175 per barrel. I remember hearing then that oil could reach as much as $500. The reality is that long before gold can ever reach such heights the bubble (and that's exactly what it is) will burst. As with anything money, there's a resistance.

Right now the dollar is in a world of hurt. The economy has still not fully recovered. Jobs are still not stable. Credit is still unavailable to a lot of people. Those facts fuel the surge of people (and nations) heading into gold as a way to hedge against a tough market and hoard cash. Just like I spoke during all the hype about oil falling like a brick, it did, and so will the price of gold. Realistically I think we can see $1,500-$2,000 an ounce, but much higher than that just seems unreasonable to me. And by the time it would reach that, I think an improved economy will already have worked to fade some of the interest in gold investing.

For me, when it gets a little far fetched, that's when it's time to get out.

PART FOUR: "HOW TO BRING HOME THE BACON" BLOG SERIES

2009-10-22T10:28:00.000-07:00

Introduction
Part One: The Law of Averages

Part Two: When It Comes To Money, Don't Lose Interest
Part Three: Think Outside the Box on the Road To Riches

FREEZE YOUR ACCESS

We generally may think otherwise, but credit cards are the enemy. They are horrible destroyers of personal wealth and financial freedom. Each and every night that we lay, snuggled comfortably beneath our covers, they are robbing us blind. They aren't after our jewels. They're raiding our coin jars. They're taking a penny here and a penny there. We'll notice the diamond ring in the jewelry case has gone missing. But we'll not so easily recognize when a couple of pennies go missing from the jar. They (the credit card companies) are masters at nickel and dimeing.

When it comes to credit cards, the worst part of all is that we tend to cherish them. We tend to rely on them. In some cases, we may even love them. After all, credit cards give us the feeling that we have an unlimited supply of money in our pockets whenever we want it. We can have whatever our heart's desire. We can conquer any emergency that comes along to haunt us. I remember one guy I used to work with, who with great pride showed me his array of cards which were stuffed into the photo compartment of his wallet. "A couple of these are platinum," he told me through a grin. "I've got nearly $100,000 worth of credit in here."

Good for you, I thought to myself. $100,000 worth of used credit is $100,000 you owe somebody else.

Still, even I'm willing to concede that credit cards can be helpful at times. And they are not all bad. Like all things, moderation and responsibility are key. It's about leveraging, for example, and knowing the difference between borrowing and leveraging. You can, for example, pay for a central air-conditioning repair and use a credit card effectively to do so, if you can pay less in interest for the expense than you are earning on the money you are investing or saving that would have otherwise paid for it.

The little tip I'm offering this week is for those who need to keep a credit card around for a sense of security if something major comes along, who perhaps don't have much in the way of savings to cover major expenses, but who also feel the temptation to use their credit card for non-emergency purposes is simply too great.

Behold. You can have your credit card and use it too.

This is a great idea, and one I won't take credit for, though I can't recall the source. I just recall many years ago seeing this tip in an article somewhere and thought it was not only novel, but genius. It is simply to fill a small bowl with water and submerge your credit card in it. Put it into the freezer and let it freeze. You can, of course, thaw the ice and retrieve your card. But it won't happen as quickly as the impulse to use it will. And by the time the ice melts, so may your desire to go on a costly shopping spree.

Years ago when I was in the Navy, I actually did something similar to this, only in my case I was using a savings account. I opened an account in a bank 30 miles from the ship and made it so that the only way I could get to the money to withdraw it was to physically drive to the bank. No ATM access here, folks. The thought of driving 30 miles made me think twice about spending the money. And even if I hopped into the car in a fleeting moment of weakness, I had 30 miles to think about what I was about to do.

The "How to bring home the bacon without slaughtering the pig" blog series will take a short hiatus, but will return on December 1, 2009 with "Part Five: Keep Your Eyes On Your Money." Also, if you are enjoying The Springboard and would like to receive updates via email when a new blog is posted, send an email to porwest@yahoo.com and type "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

I THINK FORD MAY BE WARMING UP AGAIN SOON

2009-10-19T12:58:00.000-07:00

I was recently at a birthday party for my wife's cousin's son. It's a pretty large group (30+), and so usually a line is formed to the food at serving time. On my way to pick up my plate, I happened to notice on one of the shelves a box with that unmistakable blue-oval Ford logo on it. Then, written in black magic marker the words, "Toilet tank parts." Pointing to the box I shouted out to the host, who also happens to be a Chevy man, "Are you trying to say something there?" To which he simply responded, "Yep."

Everyone's got their favorite Ford jokes, don't they?

Of course you'll note that I said back in March that I thought, not only was it time to buy a Ford car, it was time to buy the stock as well. And if you've been keeping track of the company's stock, it has done everything to prove my point so far. Just last November the stock was trading at a dismal $1.01 per share and seemed doomed for sure to fail miserably with the rest of the whole lot of American auto companies. The mere thought of it made me nauseous, considering I had been a shareholder for several years. I'd lost a sizeable portion of my investment, and more than once I considered just cutting my losses and being done with it. I did exactly that when my Krispy Kreme stock tanked. I did it again when my stake in Blockbuster Video went south.

Still, I saw upside. Ford Motor Company in my view would be able to weather the storm. They were making decisions to consolidate long before anyone else was, shedding Land Rover and Jaguar. They were ramping down production and making cuts, and they still owned the market with the best-selling truck in America. And so instead of selling, I decided to simply average down.

By August of this year, bolstered by a $700 payment protection plan as unemployment steadily rose, and then by the CARS deal, or Cash for Clunkers, and most importantly as a result of the company's stellar management performance and remarkable negotiations with the UAW, all of which were factors which allowed the company to say "Thanks, but no thanks," to President Obama's bailout offerings, the stock had gained as much as 780%. I took my profits back in September, mainly because I felt that the stock was becoming a little overbought.

My thinking is that, while I am not at all dissatisfied with my decision to take profits, my decision may well have been a bit premature. Ford is still the most attractive of all the US automakers. They have a great line of cars and those cars are getting good performance marks. And I think the Fiesta will provide a significant boost to Ford's compact car sales, especially considering oil prices are seemingly back on the way up again. The company and its line of cars are solid.

So, I'm presently considering reentering my position in Ford stock. I'm not exactly a buyer yet, but if the stock breaks $9 a share, that's definitely when I think it's time to get back in.

And what about that box of toilet tank parts? I think Ford will definitely outlast the toilet.

Jim Bauer does not currently own any shares in Ford Motor Company. Also, you can get email updates to this blog by sending an email to porwest@yahoo.com and putting "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

PUT VERY SIMPLY, MICHAEL MOORE IS AN IDIOT

2009-10-15T10:29:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore's newest movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," will soon be out in theaters en masse, and honestly I have yet to decide whether or not I'll be watching it. Perhaps, being that I'm typically one who likes to take in all sides of an issue and draw my own conclusions as to who's right and who's wrong, I'll give the movie an opportunity to at least make its case to me. But based on what I've read and what I've seen so far, and especially based on the rantings of Michael Moore himself on the film's substance and context, I feel fairly reasoned in my thinking before seeing the film that, like its infamous director, the film is full of crap and so is Moore's harebrained ideology surrounding capitalism.

Let's face it, Moore likes shock value. No mystery there. He thrives on the disenfranchised and the I'm-a-victim-of-society crowd, which also happens to be the uninformed and (sorry) most intellectually inept portion of the American population. It's this same crowd that cheers whenever someone shouts out "We're going to stick it to the man." That's really what this movie is about isn't it? Sticking it to the man. This crowd thinks they are going to get something. Oh what little do they know. Yeah, we're gonna get something alright.

The man is the bank that gives us the loan for our house, that issues the credit card for us to buy that big screen TV, the government that we pay our taxes to and who determines how much we pay, and its also the person who gives us a job. If we stick it to the man, ultimately we stick it to ourselves. The more it costs a company to run their business, the more I'll be charged at the register. The more the government taxes the man, the less people he will hire and the less he'll pay in benefits and wages to each employee.

Granted, I'm not saying the man doesn't have its share of shysters. I'm not saying that the system is without flaws. But let's not kid ourselves. There are shysters at every level of the population. Everything is flawed to an extent. There will always be someone who will game the system, whatever it is, if they see an opportunity to do so. We won't count the millions who, at this very moment, are busy gaming the welfare system and that little thing we call disability.

One of Moore's biggest complaints is of course that the top 1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth in the country. Okay fine. And yeah, I'll agree that being in the bottom 99% stinks a little bit. It certainly doesn't have near the perks the top 1% enjoys. But it's possible that the majority of that 1% earned that wealth through risk-taking and hard work. It's possible that I too can have an opportunity to propel myself to these elite ranks through hard work and risk-taking, if I so choose to do so.

Which leaves me to wonder, but through capitalism, how else would Mr. Moore himself have risen into this elite top 1%? Yep. He's right up there with them. His films are shown in publicly traded theaters. They are distributed through DVD retailers, cable companies, and (wait for it) Netflix. Last I checked, all of these businesses are owned, run, and were started through capitalism. A vast majority of them are traded in the stock market, including the company that owns his own company Overture Films. But for capitalism, he would not have been able to find investors to capitalize his ventures.

Nasty, dirty, low-down rotten capitalism. Ptuey!

Which brings me to another thought. Why not just give away this wonderful little flick? I mean, after all, Moore is already a millionaire many times over. He doesn't need any more money. Why be greedy about it? It's only his hard work and his labor of love. Shouldn't that be given away?

I can say no more. My rant has run it's course. Simply put Mr. Moore, you are as dumb as a box of rocks. You are literally biting the hand that feeds you, and I hope that that hand bites you right square back on your ass.

PART THREE: HOW TO BRING HOME THE BACON WITHOUT SLAUGHTERING THE PIG

2009-10-12T12:18:00.000-07:00

Introduction
Part One: The Law of Averages

Part Two: When It Comes To Money, Don't Lose Interest

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX ON THE ROAD TO RICHES

Let's face it. Life is hectic. It's a challenge each and every day to get the kids off to school, prep yourself for work, and meet all of the other obligations life has in store for us. Even with all of the efficiency inventions and innovations have brought to our lives, it seems we have less time than we have ever had before to get things done. For that reason something as simple as a box of macaroni and cheese seems very economical. A 7 minutes from pot to plate box of mashed potatoes seems almost too good to be true. Crock-pot favorites in a bag must make some people weak in the knees.

I'm sure you've heard it said a thousand times before; time is money. Many people don't realize how true that statement really is. In this example, not taking the time is what's costly.

Speaking of those darned jobs, don't forget that how to bring home the bacon without slaughtering the pig is all about eliminating the necessity to work to gain access to all the things we want or that we need. We've got tons of money right under our noses if we take some of that precious time to look. When we're working the daily grind for money we don't truly need, that takes a lot of time out of our lives as well, doesn't it? Bringing home the bacon with less as opposed to more work is about spending efficiently, and putting the money we save to work for us so that we can ultimately have more time for living. Let's make sure that point is perfectly clear. And of course, this also ties directly into the Law of Averages and one of the larger ways we can lower our daily consumption rate.

Hectic as life is, we have to think outside the box if we want to save money. Keep this little tidbit in mind; if someone can put it in a box, it can be made in the kitchen. If the majority of the food you eat is coming from a box, you are in every way spending a fortune's worth of wasted money without even realizing it. Never mind the numerous negative health issues associated with eating pre-prepared foods, like high sodium, loads of fillers and preservatives...the list goes on. Moreover, the time you are trying to save in the kitchen might just be due to the fact that you have to work more because your dollars aren't going far enough to keep in step with what you're spending.

If you've ever wanted to know what the vicious cycle looks like, folks, well there it is.

As I've stated before, most of the principles behind the Law of Averages and the daily consumption rate are about small, fractional savings we can achieve on a day to day basis just by tweaking a few of the things we do in our daily lives. Thinking outside the box and cooking meals from scratch is about hundreds, if not thousands of dollars saved on your grocery bill each year. And that's no joke. That's an extra house payment or extra dollars for a better car. It's more money to put into a savings or investment account. It could even be a long-awaited-for vacation you thought you didn't have the money for.

Whenever I go into the grocery store I make it a point to see what the prices are for all of these so-called convenience foods. I marvel at what people are paying for this stuff and wonder to myself, if people really knew what they were paying for the food they were buying, if they actually took the time to break it down, would they still buy the pre-prepared food item?

Here are just a couple of examples in order to illustrate my point. A bag of Pasta Sides® is 4.5 oz. and sells for around $1.20 each. That's around $4.27 per lb. for noodles. And you say you can't afford to eat a steak every day? Betty Crocker® specialty potatoes are sold in an average size of 6 oz. per box, depending on the variety, for around $1.89 each. That's $5.04 per lb. for potatoes. How much does a 10 1b bag of potatoes cost?

I think most people have the impression that the most expensive food item on their plate is the meat. When you look at it in real terms, it would appear to me the meat's the least of your worries. If you're not willing to pay the price for filet mignon, why in the world are you then willing to pay $5 per pound for potatoes?

Next installment scheduled for Thursday, October 22, 2009, "Part Four: Freeze Your Access."

PART TWO: BRINGING HOME THE BACON

2009-10-04T10:32:00.000-07:00

Introduction
Part One: The Law of Averages

WHEN IT COMES TO MONEY, DON'T LOSE INTEREST

In the saving lifestyle, every penny is important no matter how small it may seem to be, and you're going to hear me say this over and over again. Still, it's true that not everyone thinks so. I can't count on my hands how many times I've walked up to a change machine and found a pile of pennies sitting there because someone thought they were worthless. I'll grant you that by themselves and in the short term a handful of pennies won't buy much, if they can buy anything at all. But they are far from worthless.

Interest earned on a bank account is to me the equivalent of hanging onto my pennies and putting them into a jar, with the exception of the added benefit of compound interest, of course. Conversely, any money that you have in a bank account that is not earning interest is the equivalent of leaving your pennies on top of a change machine. You're leaving your pennies behind for someone else to scoop into their own pocket.

When you deposit money into a checking or savings account, you are essentially extending a short term loan to the bank. They can use that money for a multitude of purposes, including making money. If you ask the bank for a loan, they'll charge you a fee in the way of interest for that. So why would you want to offer your bank a short term loan for free? That said, there are three things that you should be doing here.

First, if you are paying any fees whatsoever to use your checking account I suggest you shop around for a free checking account. In fact, these are so common nowadays I'm not sure why anyone would choose otherwise.

Second, make sure that that free checking account also pays you interest. If you are loaning your money to someone they ought to be paying you something for the privilege. These are commonly referred to as "rewards" accounts or "plus" accounts. Banks have all sorts of names for these so you'll have to do a little research. Of course, you can also look for a money market checking account. Typically these offer slightly higher rates of interest. Still, I don't particularly care for them because often times money markets have all sorts of rules and stipulations, such as maintaining a minimum balance. That money I have to maintain in the money market account could potentially be making better interest somewhere else, so it's actually costing me money to keep it there.

There are myriad checking rewards or checking plus accounts offered in the marketplace that offer you unlimited access to your money and pay you interest regardless of your balance. So shop around. Keep in mind it's your money, not theirs. You should be able to do what you want with it.

And third, if you are earning interest on the money in your checking account, why not get just a wee bit more interest out of it by using a bill payment service? Most banks now offer this for free as well, mainly because it saves them a ton of money not having to process cumbersome paper checks. The way I see it, the beauty of bill payment is multi-fold. First, you can schedule a payment to be disbursed on the exact due date. It may seem minuscule on the surface, but even one extra day of interest earned on that $100 you need to pay a bill is valuable money in your pocket. This is sort of like the equivalent of getting just two more brushings out of that tube of toothpaste we were talking about last week. Second, you save money on a stamp, as well as the cost of the paper check itself.

That's it for me this week. But before I go, for those who still wish to leave their pennies behind, may I extend to you a thank you in advance of your next leaving? I'm quite delighted to relieve you of their burden.

Next installment scheduled for Monday, October 12, 2009, "Part Three: Think Outside the Box on the Road To Riches."

DOCTORS AND NURSES WILL NOT WALK OFF THE JOB

2009-10-01T09:32:00.001-07:00

There's been so much talk in this supposed health care debate about doctors walking off the job and nurse's leaving the profession in droves if the Obamacare Bill passes, it's almost painful to listen to. It's also a bit far fetched if you ask me. Besides, isn't it also a bit irrelevant what the medical professionals decide to do based on whatever bill eventually makes its way into law? Anymore than it was relevant what people thought the effects would be if we would have allowed the auto-industry to fail? Or the banks? For most of the American people that seemed as irrelevant as what would happen to the CEOs of these companies, or what would happen to the workers themselves.

The truth is, this argument detracts from the real issues surrounding health care reform and only, in my view, seems to serve as either a scare tactic or a threat. Or it could simply be just one more mask for a lack of real debatable ideas; in this case on the republican side.

For me the facts are clear. Doctors, and the medical professions in general, are among the highest paid in the country. Even if you start whittling away at that pay, it would still represent an attractive wage. It would still be a line of professions that people would aspire to. And at the end of the day, just like the smoker who threatens to quit if they raise the tax on his smokes just one more time; he never does, and the medical professionals won't walk off the job either. Besides, to do what? Retire? They'll likely have to retire at about 60% of what they earned on the job. To leave for another profession? Again, to do what? To make better money? They are in the highest paid profession.

To me it just doesn't make any sense. We've got real issues here with this bill that need hashing out, and that is where we need to place our focus. And I ask again, why aren't we talking about those loopholes and frauds?

NEXT VOTE UP BEFORE CONGRESS: KLEENEX OR PUFFS?

2009-09-30T11:43:00.000-07:00

First we had the democrats crying over Rep. Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out during President Obama's speech before Congress, and now we have republicans crying over a comment made by Rep. Alan Grayson when he stated, "If you get sick, America, the republican health care plan is this: die quickly. That's right. The republican's want you to die quickly if you get sick."

Inarguably a deplorable statement, and of course the statement is untrue. I even think that, considering everything without bias, neither was Rep. Wilson's statement entirely true. But this really isn't my issue at all. My issue is why we're talking about comments? Where's the real health care debate?

And consider this; why aren't we talking about all of these frauds and loopholes we're supposedly going to uncover and tighten up that the dems and the president keep telling us is how they intend to pay for the bill? Wouldn't that be something to talk about?

The fact is that both sides have valid arguments for their cause. Both sides also have problems that need to be worked through. It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to take the entire democrat plan and make it into law. But neither would it make any sense to take the entire republican plan and make it into law. We have two representative sides in our government who have been elected by the people to debate the issues concerning the American people honestly, openly, and respectfully. Somewhere down the middle is where the bill should end up. A compromise that takes the best points from both sides and combines them into a bill we can at least live with and maybe even pay for realistically is where we should end up.

The sad truth is that instead our elected officials in Congress are simply wasting time and a ton of the taxpayer's money bickering back and forth and drafting disapproval's for this comment and that comment that they don't like. Which means, maybe none of them have an idea truly worth considering. Which brings me to another thought and perhaps a brilliant idea.

Since you all in Congress have all of this free time on your hands to call each other names and draft bills to vote for disapproval of comments made by other members, how about reading the f-ing health care bill to start with!

PART ONE: BRINGING HOME THE BACON

2009-09-25T07:53:00.000-07:00

THE LAW OF AVERAGES

Each and every second of our lives we are consumers. As the clock ticks away the seconds, minutes, and hours of the day an invisible average is being calculated and recalculated and recalculated again. A long time ago I started to call this my daily consumption rate. It's a number I know is there, even though I'd never, in a gazillion years, be able to have the know-how to actually calculate it. And quite frankly, I don't know why I would want to. That would make me a bit of an obsessive, compulsive, would it not? But just the knowing that it's there makes me more aware of the everyday consumption decisions I make that I know influence it. In many ways, the daily consumption rate is in fact a key element in all of my theories about saving money, and I will refer back to it often.

Basically, every time I flip on a light switch I'm consuming electricity. Every time I flush a toilet or turn on a faucet I'm consuming water. Every time I eat a sandwich I'm consuming bread, meat, and condiments. There's a cost attached to each and every one of these actions. It adds up to a dollar amount over the course of each day. Fractions of pennies over each and every second.

Of course, you're asking, so what exactly does that have to do with saving? Isn't daily consumption about spending?

Quite simply put; how you spend your money, but more importantly how you consume the items you buy with your spent money is directly related to how you will ultimately save your money.

As a rule, we are a terribly wasteful society. We throw away more useable stuff as a country than the rest of the world combined. I won't even begin to touch on how much food we throw away. But it says a lot about our way of thinking, and also serves to illustrate the cost of our prosperity as a nation. We've taken the opportunity of plentitude for granted, and we're quite literally tossing our money out with the garbage.

As an example, our nation's landfills are full of weeks worth of extra shampoo, toothpaste, and hand soap. We simply don't want to take the time to eke out just one more spat, or one more palmful. We simply squeeze the bottle or the tube and when nothing else comes out we decide that it must be empty. And it's not necessarily so. Turn the shampoo bottle upside down and the next day you'll get another palmful of the stuff to wash your hair. Take a scissors out and cut the toothpaste tube open and you'll get one or two more brushings out of it. Doing these kinds of things may seem petty, even ridiculous, but over time it really does add up to savings. Overall, it reduces the cost of the item you bought and that's money in the bank.

Just for fun let's break it down one step further for the purpose of illustrating my point; if I buy a 6 oz. tube of toothpaste for $2 and I get 24 brushings out of it (I have no idea how many brushings I get by the way, I'm not that anal retentive) assuming a quarter oz. per brushing, my daily cost is about .083 cents. If I cut open the tube and get just two more brushings out of it my daily cost is .076 cents.

I know, I know. It's a fraction of a cent that's been saved. And you're right, it's not going to make the difference between your driving a Cadillac vs. an Aveo. But think about it. You'll have to buy 15 tubes of toothpaste to my 14 for the year. That fraction has now become $2. Imagine if you applied this principle to every thing you consume in your daily life. In reality the savings do add up to quite a lot more than you think. And again, this is about a lifestyle. You have to be thinking about saving at every turn, and you have to be thinking about it in fractional terms if you really want to get the most out of it.

Little things count! And yes, getting every drop out of everything you buy and use counts. It's admittedly hilarious when you think to yourself, all this to save a friggin' penny? Believe me, I'm laughing too. It is funny. I laugh at myself all the time about it. But the reality is that there's more money in the law of averages than you think, and those pennies add up. All of these things are contributing to that average. To the daily consumption rate. What you do, or what you choose not to do makes things cost more or cost less.

Keep in mind that saving money is also about finding wasted money. Maybe you don't want to take your life to the extreme of cutting open toothpaste tubes, and that's fine. But just take the concept in mind, and see where you can best apply it to your own consumption habits. You will definitely save money.

HOW TO BRING HOME THE BACON WITHOUT SLAUGHTERING THE PIG

2009-09-19T12:18:00.000-07:00

INTRODUCTION

A few years ago I tossed around the idea of writing a book about saving money. I wanted to call it, "How to bring home the bacon without slaughtering the pig." What that title basically meant to me when I came up with it, was that the art of saving money is more than simply picking an amount out of your paycheck each week and deducting it. It's more than setting aside money for a 401k, or sinking money into a piece of real estate. It's more than opening up an investment account at a brokerage house. All good things, mind you, and they are essential to saving. But really, it's a lifestyle. Saving is something you have to do 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You need to be constantly aware of the process of saving.

Quite literally, you have to live to save, and saving, done properly, will allow you to work less and live better. You really can have your bacon, and more of it, without all the mess and hassle of the slaughter.

In this series of blogs I will outline what is my concept of saving money. I will pass on the tools of the trade, if you will, so that you can begin the process of having a more comfortable and secure lifestyle, better afford your toys, and quite frankly enjoy life more. What I hope to accomplish is to dispose of certain myths about saving. I want to change your way of thinking about what saving money really is. Most importantly I want to leave you with an understanding that saving money is enormously easier than most people think it is. Saving is far less daunting, and far less constricting than most people make it out to be. Saving is not about total sacrifice. It's not about living like a pauper. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. The less you save the more likely you'll end up sacrificing. Saving money is all about liberation and freedom.

Keep in mind that since this is not a book, these pieces may be a bit hodge-podge. It'll be part tips, part commentary, part discussion. It will be whatever it needs to be. My aim is to add to it each week, and I'll do the best I can to keep the train on a straight path. Perhaps in the end I can compile something more neatly. Along the way, feel free to ask questions, share concerns, disagree with any points, or offer interesting ways that you have found to get more out of your money and live an easier lifestyle. As this is my path, I'm all ears.

CRYBABY CONGRESS NEEDS TO GET BACK TO WORK

2009-09-14T06:58:00.000-07:00

In my view, the situation that has arisen out of the Rep. Wilson shout-out, "You lie!" during President Obama's speech on health care before Congress last week is being blown way out of proportion. This is not to say that I think Rep. Wilson's comment was inaccurate. But it was certainly inappropriate, and I think he did the right thing to apologize to the president, even though he did seem to imply in his statement to the press that he had done it on the urging of the GOP leadership. Even still, he could have taken the urgings into consideration, politely said no, and went on with his business. The political consequences, whatever they may have been, would have been his to deal with in the aftermath. But now, democratic leaders want him to apologize before the House as well, something Rep. Wilson has firmly stated he will not do.

Naturally this is nothing more than an attempt by the dems to divert attention away from the real debate before the House and the Senate, and that's the whole health care issue. As far as anyone should be concerned, the issue should be done and over with. It's water over the dam. Rep. Wilson said he was sorry. He's taken his lumps. 'Nuff said.

But the dems wish to portray another "bad guy" republican. They want the American people to focus on this of all things. I also think it's a little bit shocking that they're actually spending time taking time to consider taking actions in the House against Wilson. All these important issues to work through, all this money being blown out the window that we don't have, wars and tensions between North Korea, Iran and other places that wish to kill us. Bombs being bought by Hugo Chavez thanks to loans from Russia. And here our politicians are, well...playing politics instead of getting the work of the people done. And somewhere in all this I'm certain the black caucus is considering labeling him a racist simply because his views differ from the president's views. We'll have to wait and see on that one. Perhaps Rev. Wright would like to weigh in?

What irks me more than the House's response, frankly, is the outcry among some Americans as to the terribleness (is that even a word?) of the whole thing. How could a sitting president be heckled by a congressman in the House of Representatives? Yet, and while I'll concede the circumstances were not exactly the same, the whole shoe throwing incident when it happened to former President Bush was met with applause. Americans seemed happy rather than mortified that a sitting American president on foreign soil had been so disrespected. Late night TV made jokes galore. Not so with the Rep. Wilson incident. But that's for another day.

All in all this is a dead issue, and I think Americans need to drop a note to Pelosi, Reid and the entire Congress frankly, "Enough playing games on our dime. It's time to get to work!"

SAVING FOR CONSUMER CONFIDENCE

2009-09-04T05:49:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that we are too intently focused on credit as the great restorer of wealth and economic prowess in the world, and for that reason we're putting all this effort into jump starting the credit markets. Consumer confidence is quite literally measured by the ability of people to access money and use it to buy things, and of course, consumerism drives the American economy. But what good is it, I wonder, if the money that can be accessed isn't really there? That's what credit is, after all. The perception of money. And I wonder as well, how much would our economy have had to suffer in today's recession had people had real money in the bank with which to meet their obligations when the bottom fell out of the whole thing? How much real confidence would have been supported by real money. And furthermore, would we have even had a recession to speak of?

Borrowing isn't an entirely bad idea. But then, neither is saving. Obviously we can take both ideas to the extreme, citing the US American consumers' high debt numbers and Japan's excessive savings numbers. In both cases, economies have been harmed by too much of one thing. One word should apply here; balance. You have to have a balance between real wages, real money in the bank, and access to credit to leverage those wages and savings. And yes, somewhere in that scheme you need to be able to cover that leverage, and I'm not talking about covering that leverage with even more leverage.

If you've followed my blogs at all, you've of course noted that I strongly believe that credit has stifled wages for quite some time. The price of cars have gone up. The price of homes has gone up. Entertainment costs like movies and sporting events have gone up. There are probably more restaurants in this country than grocery stores and it certainly costs considerably more to eat out than it does to eat in. And most of this run up in prices has been driven by plastic. Plastic has made it possible to drag prices to the sky while having wages all but stand still. Plastic has also taken the idea of saving and tossed it right out the window. With mailboxes overflowing with offers of money, Americans felt pretty darn rich. Even the guy serving up the fries at the local McDonald's drove a Lexus.

In order to restore consumer confidence in America we have to restore the concept that saving for a rainy day is good, sound thinking. When you can wake up in the morning and see real money on a balance sheet in a bank account you can rest assured that if something bad happens tomorrow and the bottom drops out from under you, you can at the very least, get yourself up out of the hole. Especially in a case like now when the plastic money fairy is hiding behind a rock.

Of course, somewhere in all of this the money has to flow back to the consumer in the way of jobs. Good, solid wage paying jobs. And so the cycle goes.

ON THE JOB PROBATIONARY PERIODS SHOULD BE FLEXIBLE

2009-08-28T09:08:00.000-07:00

Most companies have a probationary period of one sort or another whereas the new employee entering the organization must be on his or her best behavior. Often times this period lasts 60 or 90 days from the date of hire. It, in effect, allows the company to see attributes or qualities demonstrated in real that were discussed during the hiring process. I'm fine with this kind of a policy. Anyone can say anything they want to get through an interview. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding, and this is the employee's time to shine.

The difficulty occurs when certain companies take this policy to the extreme. Everyone knows its crunch time. Everyone knows you can't miss a beat. But how much does a company's management have to hang this period over the new hire's head? How much fear does a company need to impart on the new hire? What considerations should be made when the probationary period has ended to truly determine whether or not the employee is a suitable candidate for permanent employment?

Ultimately, I think the entire period should be based on character and merit, and on the new hire's demonstrated ability to perform the job that he's been hired for. That's what the policy's function should be. I think that's really the intention of most probationary policies.

Yes, the new employee should be timely in his work, be on time, and be professional in every way. Yes, the new employee is on probation and should be keenly aware that he's not yet a permanent fixture on the company's payroll. But companies should be equally aware of the nature of life and its certain unpredictability. It's not necessarily what happens, but what you do when it happens.

What if a close family member dies? What if the new hire has an auto accident? Should the employee be forced to decide whether his job is more important than a family member's memorial? Should a company decide that an accident is grounds for dismissal because the employee ultimately couldn't show up to work because he or she is lying in a hospital recovering? What if the new hire's car breaks down unexpectedly (of course, when do we expect it, right?), but he or she follows a professional path to inform the right people of the situation and makes every effort to still report to work—albeit late?

What I believe should be most important in all probationary policy, and frankly any policy in the workplace, is flexibility. The reality is that most managers tell an interviewee during the interview process that, "We are looking for someone able to be flexible, to be able to adapt to varying situations, and to be able to offer creative solutions to problems and situations that may arise throughout the workday."

I highlight words like flexible and adapt and creative because all of them lack one thing in common. Rigidity. A policy, like an expectation held to the employee it ultimately affects, should not be so rigid that it cannot address real situations that people may encounter in everyday life—even when that person is on their 90 days! Things happen. Situations arise. We deal with them. We adapt to them. We have to. That's the nature of life.

To anyone hiring someone today or currently administering a probationary policy, keep this message in mind. People seek jobs to work. They seek jobs to provide a living for themselves and maintain a good qualify of life for their families. Fear is never a good way to motivate a new hire to do good for the company. And when you are a company who strictly enforces a policy like a probationary one, heedless of uncontrollable circumstances that a new hire may sometimes have to deal with, even when he or she deals with them in a courteous, honest, and professional manner, you can't also honestly believe our employees are our most important asset is a statement that holds any water. Most important, don't forget you were once a new employee as well.

IT'S SCISSOR TIME AGAIN

2009-07-30T11:36:00.000-07:00

It comes around every so often for all of us. You break out the scissors having concluded that it's time, once again, to cut up those credit cards weighing down your wallet. And each and every time we do it, it's always a wise decision. If that's not where you're at right now, maybe you should be.

Despite all of the rhetoric spouted off in fancy TV, magazine and Internet ads about all the financial freedom credit can provide to buy what you want, and do what you want, the truth is that credit cards are the enemy. In reality, they are really destroyers of financial gain and freedom. They'll cripple you long before they'll help you along to any happy goal.

Another problem with them is that credit cards also send out false economic indicators that consumers have real money to spend. That consumers have real money to cover the debts they rack up with them. The recession we're in now is proof enough that that was far from the case. During the boom people were using new debt to pay off old debt, and so went the vicious cycle. Our time was as borrowed as the money we were using to buy a bunch of crap we really didn't need anyway (most of it made in China, mind you).

At the end of the day credit cards are akin to horrible, taloned monsters that lurk deep in the shadows, lying in wait sneering just at the brink of eye shot, with their deviant little bag of tricks ever at the ready. Like all monsters, they thrive best when you can't see them. When you just barely know that they are there. Jumping out and yelling "boo!" is not only easy stuff. It's a dead ringer. Monsters rather relish in taking little bits of you until finally, one day, they've got you but good.

My wife and I are again credit card free. We've done the scissor deed. The little plastic bits have been banished to the local landfill, maybe even this time for good. Granted, that's not to say that we're debt free. We still have the balances to pay back. But the ability to access the credit we were able to before has heretofore been removed from the equation. The option to use the credit is no longer in the cards, if you'll pardon my pun.

Part of what made the decision for us, is that the credit card companies have suddenly decided to punish everyone for the credit crunch. They've decided it's now up to us, the consumer, to pay for mistakes that they (the banks—and oh yeah, that bozo Barney Frank too) have made by arbitrarily increasing interest rates, adding on fees, and changing the overall terms as to how they'll apply your payments. First the government was supposed to cover their failures. Now they want the customer to do it too. And as taxpayers as well as customers, that's a double kick right square in the face as far as I am concerned, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I allow them to do it. It should be a cold day in hell for every American who has one of these little plastic monsters nibbling holes in the fabric of their financial security and dreams as well.

The secret is in creating real wealth and real money. It's in saving and using money we actually have. Cash, not credit, is freedom. It's power. If you don't have it, the monsters have got you.

DON'T MAKE A MONKEY OUT OF ME

2009-05-07T13:36:00.000-07:00

You know, it strikes me as funny today as I underwent my physical for a new job, the things that they make you do. You know that I do factory work, right? It's over there on the right in my "about me" column. Well anyway, I do. Of course there are things in factory work that can be strenuous at times. You have to be at least reasonably agile and able to perform certain functions. You may have to lift things at times of varying weights and you may have to be able to get up onto platforms for example. Factory work is not necessarily wheelchair accessible if you know what I mean. I can understand a company's desire to make sure you can walk, stand, bend, and lift before they actually send you off onto their factory floor. This is at least minimally important to be ascertained.

But sometimes I think these so-called tests are something more akin to those what-would-you-do-for-a-Klondike-bar commercials. You know the ones I'm talking about. Like the one where the guy stands on a table and barks like a seal.

Don't get me wrong here. A job is important. It pays the bills. Generally speaking I still happen to need one. But they (the companies) seem to be begging the question how bad do you want it? with a bit of snicker and a grin.

In a word, and I'm being more than fair here, the tests are ridiculous. They are humiliating and ridiculous. Incredulously you stand there as they tell you, with every bit of seriousness, what ridiculous task you must perform and you suddenly have an urge to ask, "are you people serious? Lemme see that paperwork you have there. Are you sure this is for the factory job?"

Get on your hands and knees and crawl. Pick up this bolt and crawl backwards with it in your hand. Then crawl forward again and put the bolt back where you took it from. Reach up and play with this nut and bolt with your hand above your head for two minutes. Now play with the nut and bolt with your other hand for another two minutes. Walk up and down this staircase six times...

The ridiculous list of course goes on.

Look, I'm happy to have a job. The company I will be working for is a good one. But I'm not a show seal in a zoo waiting for you to throw me a fish when I perform well. Or a dog anxiously waiting for you to request my next trick so I can get a bone. Really, what it boils down to is I'm not an idiot. I'm simply a guy who wants to make an honest living so I can support myself, my wife, and my way of life.

We all know that the folks who come up with these ridiculous tests are of the type that would never be required to do any such thing, so I say to them knock it off. It isn't funny and nobody deserves to be made into a monkey for anything, especially for a job.

TAKING SIRIUS, SERIOUSLY

2009-04-23T07:59:00.001-07:00

They say that necessity is the mother of all invention, but in the case of Sirius XM Radio, it's hard times that is the mother of its reinvention.

It's no secret that satellite radio heavily relied on auto sales to reel in new customers. That source has recently become drier than the Mojave Desert. But its not just the lack of auto sales that's gotten their bottom line all in a bunch. It's the shredded economy which is forcing cash-strapped consumers to keep their money firmly in their pockets. Shelling out dough for a shiny new car is difficult enough. Adding in discretionary items like subscription radio is equally difficult for a consumer to consider when his job is on the line and the kids need to be fed. But no one is tossing their iPod or their iPhone out with the bathwater, and those are absolutely just as discretionary as anything can be (though there are many who may politely argue that point), and that's gotten Sirius CEO Karmazin thinking. It's the access stupid.

Part of iPod's success, in my opinion, has been its user accessibility. If people were going to pay money to download music to enjoy, they were going to want to enjoy it at their leisure, and at the place of their choosing, just like they would be able to do with a regular CD. So iPods now can be played almost anywhere, thanks to compatible playing devices that you can plug the thing into. It's also given an enormous boost to record company sales, and its made it less popular to bootleg downloads via file share programs. To be sure, it's been a win, win situation.

And by the way, while we're on the topic, let me point out that Apple's stock is still a fantastic buy right now, and part of that is due to the ongoing reach and usability of the iPod and the expanding popularity of the iPhone.

And that makes Sirius XM attractive as well, as it looks to integrate and bundle its services with popular devices like the iPod and the iPhone. They may also provide its services through it's relationship with Direct TV, of whom Liberty Media has a controlling stake. Hooking up is just plain smart business thinking, in my opinion. I also think that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I said a long time ago that I thought that satellite radio, in general, would eventually have to consider some form of advertising in order to generate revenue sufficient to carry them to profitability. Nowadays, I think that all Sirius XM needs to do is to present value to the consumer. Broadening the delivery system for their service is certainly going to offer much more in the way of value to the consumer than is currently the case. The more one can do with the service, the easier it is to access and enjoy the service, the more valuable that service becomes to the user. If Sirius XM can pull that off successfully, then I think the company can see its way to becoming profitable sooner rather than later.

Conversely, that profit is a long way ahead, and the company still may face some difficulty meeting debt obligations down the line. Liberty Media also needs to continue to be attracted to the company in order to stay on board. Certainly there is a considerable amount of risk in owning this company. That aside, I think Sirius may be well on their way to something, and for that reason, I think the company is a buy.

Full disclosure: Jim Bauer currently owns shares in both Apple, Inc., and Sirius XM Radio Holdings.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IS SUFFERING FROM A LACK OF APPRECIATION

2009-04-07T16:41:00.000-07:00

Vice president Joe Biden told CNN today that he guaranteed that we are safer today than at any time during the eight years of the Bush Administration, rebuking a statement made by former vice president Dick Cheney in an interview with CNN's John King last month, whereas he told CNN that he felt that some of the choices being made by the Obama administration were putting Americans at greater risk of another terrorist attack.

The statement made by Biden is, of course, incredulous at best, if not a little bit unfair to the obvious successful accomplishment of the Bush administration to avoid future attacks. Bush never could be denied at least that one fact. We were not attacked following that terrible day in September 2001, and that was due largely to the policies of the Bush administration. To deny that is just plain ridiculous. And to Cheney's point, there's also no denying that much of Obama's plan with regard to Iraq, his failure to call terrorists for what they are, his interest in closing down Gitmo and releasing terrorists—potentially onto American soil—are all meant to appease the world. President Obama is pandering. In a way, pandering does indeed put us at a higher risk in that it tells all the bad people in the world we'd rather be touchy, feely than get down to the business of doing what we need to in order to protect our interests.

I'll admit that the United States has a bit of a reputation problem in many parts of the world, and that you can lay a lot of that blame on the Bush administration if you'd like to. That said, since when has it ever been about what the rest of the world thinks? The rest of the world didn't have planes flown into its buildings. The rest of the world wasn't attacked. The president had a choice to make and he made it. And even if you argue that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, certainly there was no denying the combatant stance that was being taken by the Iraqi government, the refusal to allow inspectors in to ensure compliance with U.N. resolutions, and ultimately prove the lack of weapons of mass destruction. There was no denying that Sadam Hussein was an evil dictator bent of killing his own citizens and bringing turmoil, chaos, and fear to his own citizens as well as Iraq's surrounding countries.

If we are safer as a nation today it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the policies of the Obama administration and everything to do with the policies of the former. It has everything to do with the bringing together of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to better communicate and share information and manpower. It has everything to do with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and with tightened security efforts at airports across the nation.

Biden should be thankful.

HAVE YOU OWNED FORD STOCK, LATELY?

2009-03-31T07:31:00.000-07:00

With unemployment in the U.S. hovering right around 8%, and with economists and other watchers seeing yet more job losses to come, not to mention the still tight credit markets, no one is taking the risk to buy a new car for fear that somewhere in the near future they may find themselves ultimately unable to pay for it. And, of course, that's smart thinking.

But Ford Motor Company is having none of that, and naturally, they want you to go out and get a car—a Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury no less. Their sales have been in the dumps for a long time now, thanks to all this economic gloom and doom and sky-falling speak, and it's absolutely vital to their survival that they do something to add to car sales.

Until June 1st, Ford is offering car buyers a payment protection plan good for one year's worth of payments of up to $700 a month if the buyer should suddenly find him or herself in the unemployment line. If you think about it, coupled with dealer incentives galore and zero percent interest financing available to qualified buyers, now may be just the time to buy that shiny new Ford.

It may also be the best time to buy the company itself.

Okay, okay. Ford is in bad shape if you compare it to its history. But then, the entire U.S. auto industry is in bad shape. Auto workers are being laid off. Plants are being shuttered. It's crickets in Detroit. And that ominous word "bankruptcy" is being tossed around an awful lot lately. So why on Earth would anyone want to invest in what seems like a sinking ship? I must be out of my tree.

The good news is that Ford is, for the most part, sound. It's getting its act together, thanks in large part to the brilliance of its current leader Mulally. It hasn't taken a single dime from the government. It's freed itself from Jaguar and Land Rover, which were costly and unprofitable enterprises. And it's landed concessions—and good ones—with the UAW. If anyone is going to come out on top when the proverbial manure settles after being hit by the fan, it is going to be Ford without a doubt. Besides, they still make the #1 best-selling truck in America, and their new line of cars are, in my opinion, looking pretty darn sharp. The new Lincolns are spot-on as well, and I think can easily give Cadillac, Lexus, and Infinity a strong run for their money. To borrow a phrase, these aren't your grandpa's Lincolns.

Granted, the company still has quite a bit of ground to cover before it returns to profitability, and who knows exactly when this economy is going to finally go off its life support. But this is a long-term play. If you have the time, are willing to be patient, and gradually build your position over the next 3-5 years, I think you'll be very pleased looking back.

Full disclosure: Jim Bauer currently owns stock in Ford Motor Company.

FRENCH-FRIED AMERICAN FAT CATS WOULD SIT WELL ON THE MENU

2009-03-25T08:32:00.001-07:00

It's not too often that you'll hear me speak well about anything relating to France. They continue to be on my "list" for a variety of reasons. But the recent development at a French 3M factory where the workers there have held their manager hostage in a labor dispute is something I'm finding myself applauding. Apparently this is a fast rising trend among French laborers unsatisfied with work conditions, or pay.

Of course, there are going to be throngs of those reading this who will surely disagree with me. And others, who have read my many rants, would know that I don't stand on the side of labor unions—that is to say, most of the time. And this French tactic is, with all due respect, a bit of a Gestapo tactic, if not a "union-style" one taken to the extreme. The tactic is, however, perhaps not without its due. Americans might do well to pay close attention.

I, and I'm certain I'm not alone here, am frankly getting sick and tired of the average American worker getting the raw end of the deal at every single turn. I'm fed up with fat cat CEOs and execs getting all the loot, all the perks, all the incentives and rewards, while wages just don't go up. I'm tired of it being okay to say that performance should be rewarded—but only when it applies to the CEO. I'm tired of the argument that "in order to attract and retain good talent we need to pay big bucks—again, only when it applies to the CEO. I'm tired of being told that I should just shut up, suck it up, and be happy to have a job at all. Perhaps if American workers grew more of a backbone as French workers have recently decided to do, we could go to the boss and say, "No, my friend, you should consider yourself the lucky one."

At the end of the day everyone should be entitled—yes, entitled—to be rewarded if they perform well. They should be paid a fair and decent wage, and they should have their basic needs taken care of, provided they work hard and produce profitable results for the company they work for—just like we do for the CEO and his family. After all, anyone with half a mind knows that a good, solid economy revolves around productivity. People have to be productive and produce the goods and services people will ultimately buy. So then, who really is at the heart of that productivity? Of course it's the back-breaking, ball-busting American on the production line, or on the sales team, or on the retail sales floor. It's the gal serving you your sandwich at lunch time. So why aren't they getting their due? Why aren't they getting their respect or their reward? No one complains when a CEO gets millions of dollars in bonuses and salary, but try to push through a law—such as we have here in Milwaukee—that you must pay a worker sick pay and everyone is right away up in arms.

Hey Mr. CEO, have you ever heard the old saying that you should never bite the hand that feeds you? Don't forget why you are in your chair in the first place? Don't forget who makes the crap you get so well paid to be at the helm of.

I'm not really suggesting we start locking our own managers in their offices until we get our fair share of the loot. But I think it's high time we get really mad. And I mean fit-to-be-tied. It is the American mantra, "united we stand, divided we fall." If we stand up and say, together, that we're not going to stand for it anymore, the top echelon will have no choice but to listen. We need to leverage ourselves, not to become millionaires, but simply to get our fair share of the prize. Simply to be included in the successes achieved by the companies we break our backs for. And then, and only then, if the CEOs and managers choose to play deaf, I'll gladly hold the door while you throw away the key.

AIG IS OUTRAGEOUS, AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT, THE ENTIRE TOP ECHELON IN CORPORATE AMERICA ARE FULL OF CRAP

2009-03-16T07:30:00.000-07:00

It is irritating, if not a little bit disturbing, to once again hear the arguments of already highly paid executives talk about "what they are entitled to" as part of a contract they negotiated, or for the sheer value of the work they do. That's exactly the case at AIG, and the goings on there should infuriate every single taxpayer in America. Maybe the government felt it necessary because of AIG's size to bail it out and save it from ruins—I too, wrote that AIG needed to be saved—but now the American people and other companies using AIG's services should consider casting a different vote and putting the company out of our misery after all. It is effectively walking all over us at this point. But it's not the only guilty party out there.

How many times do we have to sit and listen to millionaire executives justify exorbitant paychecks and bonuses while their companies crumble before our very eyes? How many times must we hear the argument that in order to retain good leaders that we must highly compensate them. I ask, with millions of dollars that you apparently don't have? And why is good talent only defined as people making over a million dollars a year? What about the guy at the bottom struggling to make a living? He is as important, if not more important than the guy sitting behind the mahogany desk in a marble-floored penthouse office. He makes the goods or provides the actual services that the company sells.

How often do we hear CEO's stand before their employees and speak to them about having to make sacrifices for the good of the company? You must understand that in times like these, we may have to downsize. That's right, your job is not important. Your future is not important. Your pay is not important. Yours. But they'll still kindly take their $20 million dollar paychecks and bonuses, and thank you very much, while you sit at home after losing your $50,000 a year job for the good of the company.

They say that they can't afford the high cost of health care. They can't afford to offer you a pension plan. They can't afford to match as much on your 401k plan. Yet they can pay out those bonuses worth millions. They can fly corporate jets. All the while they ask every employee to please turn out the lights before they leave the restroom because of course, electricity costs too much. Even the company I currently work for stopped putting my pay stub in an envelope in an effort to save money—even as the top executives were cashing their over $5 million in bonuses that were paid just weeks before filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11.

I have long held that CEO compensation is egregious, and totally out of control. While the average worker gets the raw end of the deal time and time again, the top employees of the company lavish themselves with gifts and offerings fit for a king. They win the lottery every single day that they step into the office. And they use terms like you have to do what it takes, and you have to be willing to make sacrifices. You, you, you. Their fingers are always pointing at you. The guy who has to bust his tail for meager earnings, who receives no bonuses for his talents, who gets no perks for his performance, and who, when you fail at your job will be sent packing without so much as a handshake instead of one of those golden parachutes your CEO most certainly will get on his way out.

If nothing else this economic time has highlighted the case that CEO compensation is completely out of whack, and that the executive world is effectively out of touch with the reality that the average American is facing every single day. The fact is that if I can make do with the $85 or so thousand dollars a year that my wife and I bring home together, so can you Mr. CEO.

Back to AIG; I think it should burn to the ground and I'll be looking forward to electronically thumbing through the pages of Craigslist for the ads from it's former executives seeking work. As for the other companies out there? Don't forget who put you in that fancy leather chair to begin with. Each and every one of us average Americans who shell out our hard-earned money to buy your stuff, and who sweat to put it on the shelf!

LIBERTY SAVES SIRIUS, BUT MORE IS NEEDED

2009-02-18T14:13:00.000-08:00

With two other of the stocks in my portfolio currently under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, I was glad to learn that Liberty Media would come to the rescue for Sirius XM Radio, Inc. Liberty CEO John Malone will infuse $530 million into the company, getting a 40% stake, as well as a couple of seats on the company's board. Not only does Sirius XM need the cash to pay it's debts, but I think it also needs some fresh ideas as to just exactly how Sirius will be profitable going forward.

The merger of XM and Sirius was a good idea, though we haven't been able to see the fruits of that yet. Nor have we been able to determine just how good an idea it actually was, because right about the time that the two satellite companies were pleading their case before anti-trust regulators, and throngs of others against the merger, an economic crisis unlike any we have seen for at least 30 years in our history was lurking. Ultimately that very crisis killed the market that was the primary source for both XM and Sirius' new subscribers—the auto industry.

Long before the merger I wrote on a Sirius stock message board that I felt that Sirius would have to turn to some form of advertising in order to keep itself afloat. I still hold this thought today. Though it's a bit of a tricky deal. Everything will need to be in the details. Part of satellite's draw, aside from it's focused content offerings, was that it would be commercial free. So, simply thrusting regular radio commercial spots onto their paying listeners would be a betrayal, and I think also would be the death of satellite radio—at least as we know it.

Sirius XM needs to be as innovative in creating new revenue streams as were the pioneers of internet search, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, founders of Google, Inc., who successfully made advertising less intrusive, more informative, and because the advertising was directly related to search inquiries, it also made it an invaluable source of new customers for all sorts of business' product offerings.

Perhaps Sirius XM can somehow infuse that idea of content related advertising into their programming, or perhaps they'll come up with something entirely new.

When it comes to satellite radio, the truth is that we're in the baby stages of the industry. It's a learning process. Other players most likely will come onto the field to fill the gaps that Sirius XM cannot. Much like happened to AOL, Webcrawler, and even Yahoo to some extent. For that reason I'll be watching very closely in the next year or two to see where this company is going. I haven't given up yet. But they must turn a profit. If they don't, the next Google will be right around the corner waiting for their "in," and I will be out.

BAD ECONOMIC TIMES WILL LEAD TO A RENEWED SENSE OF AMERICAN VALUES

2009-01-29T12:35:00.000-08:00

It's hell on wheels in this current economy, and all indications are that we will see things worsen yet more before we see any beginning of a turnaround. One economist was even reported as saying he sees up to 3 million additional job losses in 2009, despite all good intentions of the nearly $900 billion stimulus plan that goes before the Senate next week.

But perhaps there we will be hidden benefits to come out of this downward spiraling economy. For one, I think we'll see a bit of a contraction in the explosion of recent years of illegal immigrants entering the country seeking a better life, especially from Mexico. As jobs here become more scarce, less and less people will be excited about coming across the border.

In my view, this is a good thing. Look, where I live currently, there are areas of town I go to where I firmly believe English is a second language. How many times have my wife and I walked through the stores and shops and asked the question, "Does anyone speak English anymore?" And these are not economically prospering areas. These are depressed areas. High crime areas.

Don't get me wrong. Immigration isn't all bad. But from where I'm standing, I'm seeing the community pulled down as opposed to being lifted up. This is mainly as a result of the types of jobs available to most immigrants, and the low wages that are commonly associated with them.

...and the fact that many of these immigrants do not speak the English language creates a barrier to realizing their true potential.

But it's not all about illegal immigration. As a whole, I think this economic crisis is also a golden opportunity for Americans to get things back into some order, and to rethink how we live and work. We have a strong need to pull ourselves back down to reality here. It's a painful thing to say, but the fact is that I think we've simply had it a little too good in the recent past and as a result, we've become terribly complacent and a lot naive about how safe we are. How many of you have 16 year old's entering the workforce today who won't step foot in a restaurant to wash dishes or bus tables? How many think that working for McDonald's is beneath them? This is a mindset. This is a trend. And it's not a good one.

How much of this "I don't have to get my hands dirty" mentality, has contributed to us throwing away millions upon millions of solid, good paying, strong benefited industrial jobs we thought we didn't need?

Did you know that the average salary of a factory worker in the state of Wisconsin, as reported last year in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, was $54,000? When you add in the benefits most of these workers tend to receive, that amount goes up extensively. Few service jobs pay those wages, and few college graduates entering the workforce start out there either. So, those so-called "dirty" jobs aren't really so bad after all, and their death has caused a severe erosion of America's middle class.

The good that will come out of this is that rethinking. That reassessment of what's important. And I think we'll look a little closer for those stars and stripes on a box of goods we buy as well. We'll seek out the "Made in the U.S.A." labeling because we'll have a renewed sense of just how important any American job is.

It's not a matter of protectionism. In my view, it's a matter of common sense. Globalization is not good for us if it does not contribute to us getting to do more right here at home. Globalization is counter-productive if it only contributes to providing us with something cheap to buy, but does not provide us with a source for a solid, good paying American job as well. Credit is not a good thing if it contributes to a false sense of prosperity. Credit is not a good thing if it holds down wages by filling the void between what you earn and what you can "afford" to buy. Illegal immigration is not a good thing if it makes us think we're too good to do certain types of jobs.

In summary it's bad, but it isn't all bad. We have quite the long road ahead of us yet to go. But it does, I think, lead to a better place. And it's one I think we're going to like when we get there.

COMPROMISE IN THE AUTO BAILOUT PLAN IS ESSENTIAL

2008-11-19T13:06:00.001-08:00

Earlier, I voiced my opposition to the proposed $25 billion bailout of the auto industry. I still believe that an outright handing over of $25 billion worth of taxpayer money is not right for the country, nor is it right for the industry. But I will concede that something must occur here. A loan, I think, which is now being proposed, is more in line with what I think could be the best idea.

It is obvious, that for various reasons, America's auto industry is faced with catastrophic losses in volume and has seen revenue all but disappear. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have already been shed, product lines slashed, plants shuttered, and I suspect that even if a loan is extended to the Big Three auto companies, yet more will likely be coming.

This is, without a doubt, due in large part to a terrible failure on the part of these companies top level managements to foresee major shifts in consumer demand, and to have a plan in place to deal with it, such as looking at innovative ways to make plants more capable of producing more than just one type of vehicle. They literally ran their companies into the ground in this case by being too heavily focused on the big trucks and SUVs that have now severely fallen out of favor. The money they are seeking is primarily for the purpose of retooling existing plants to manufacture smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, as well as increase focus and attention on the research and development of electric and other hybrid technology in cars.

There's a vast majority of people who keep saying to just let the auto companies fail. They've gotten themselves into this mess and they should therefore suffer the consequences.

The truth is, I think, that under normal economic conditions that might be something certainly to consider. It is largely their problem. The logic certainly sits well with my thoughts about free markets. But we are not experiencing normal economic conditions right now. And there's more going on than just simply bad decision making. There's tension and unease and there's still a massive amount of that uncertainty I keep talking about which is holding back any near term hope for even the slightest hint of a recovery. The markets continue to fall, and the credit markets are all but frozen solid. Under these circumstances, allowing the auto companies to outright fail would, in my opinion, have a devastating—and lasting— ripple effect on this economy. And I think, looking at it now, and looking at the sheer millions of jobs that could potentially be lost from not only the automakers, but their suppliers and dealers as well, that the possibility of a deep depression could be more real than I've ever believed it could be before.

We really do need to tread very carefully here. We're coming very close to testing that bottom we had on October 10th with yet another disgusting day in the stock market today. There's a piece of advice someone once gave me that I still find very profound today, and I think applies to this situation rather well. Don't fuck yourself, trying to fuck somebody else.

I think there are a number of people actually enjoying the pain and suffering of the big companies and the top dogs without realizing the real effect it ultimately has on us in the end.

IN JUDGE JUDY'S WORDS, YOU'RE AN IDIOT

2008-11-14T11:25:00.000-08:00

...if you are selling stocks right now.

Okay, perhaps that's a bit harsh. Even unfair. But trust me when I say it's also the reality.

The fact is that if you have taken a recent look at your 401k balance, and if you have evaluated any portion of even your personal portfolio of late, you will have found there to be a stark and dismal contrast between what you had a year ago, compared to what you have now. It's a fantastically scary realization indeed.

It seems only logical to most people that when the money runs away, so should you. But not so fast.

Yes, I know. I've talked about this before. I'm beating a dead horse. Allow me to beat it deader.

Even Warren Buffet, the wizard of stock land, more commonly known as The Oracle of Omaha, is losing his behind grandly. If anyone ought to be sweating bullets it most certainly ought to be the richest man in the world.

But instead Warren's buying right now. In fact, he's been mainly cash in his personal holdings for years. The mere fact that he's exchanging his cash for securities in this of all markets, says quite a lot. Buffet is no dummy when it comes to making money. He knows that stocks are terribly cheap right now. He also knows that this dark and dreary market will not last forever. According to history, the best time to buy the market is directly after it reaches its bottom. We may have seen that bottom October 10th.

The consensus seems to be sell, sell, sell. Certainly the massive dips in the Dow attest to that. I strongly feel that if you take a contrarian approach and buy this market you stand to make a killing. In an earlier blog I wrote, "this, the great economic crisis of 2008, will have historically proven to have made the riches of those who dared to proceed contrary to the current sentiment." I stand by that logic.

Some stocks I like right now include Waterstone Financial (WSBF), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), McDonald's Corp. (MCD), Marcus Corporation (MCS), World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), Marathon Oil Corp. (MRO), and Fomento Economico Mexicano SAB DE CV (FMX). Twelve months from now I think all of them will be up considerably. And in the interest of full disclosure, I own all of these stocks except for WWE, which I will be buying Monday or Tuesday depending on trading.

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA IS BEATING THE MARKETS TO A PULP

2008-11-12T15:00:00.000-08:00

It was yet another treacherous day on Wall Street today, with the Dow shedding a whopping 411 more points to settle at 8,282. Can it be any clearer a signal from the looks of things that the stock market apparently is not appreciative of the outcome of the presidential election? Granted, the economy's near future still looks terribly bleak, and certainly that's also playing a role. But come on. Barack Obama was supposed to be the beacon of hope. He would all but stop a speeding train, leap tall buildings, and herald in a new era of prosperity—okay, okay, I'll lay off. He's not the president officially yet.

And I keep thinking back to that statement that my co-worker said to me, who I'll let on now also happens to be the union president at my plant, on the morning of the 5th after it was clear who our new president would be.

10,000 points.

With only one up day on the Dow to speak of since the election, that being last week Friday when we jumped 248 points, the Dow is down over 1300 points. I suppose the good news is that we're still higher than October 10th when the Dow was at 7,882. But it does suggest that perhaps what we thought was the bottom of this market may not have been. We have two more trading days left in the week, and while I think we may have perhaps a small rally, it won't be enough to give back what was lost for the week. And it doesn't seem that farfetched to me that we could very likely start off next week back in the 7,000s.

And then there's this auto industry bailout floating around.

I wrote disdainly, at my other blogsite (which often mirrors this one) http://blog.myspace.com/jimbauer601, that I thought it would be against our better interests to bail out the auto industry, despite my thinking also that I do feel it is an important jobs issue. But it's not the entire financial system that's at stake, so in my opinion it defies that free market capitalism idea I feel did not apply in the other case.

That said, I think if the auto industry bailout does happen, and I think it will because there seems to be much support for the idea amongst the democrats in Congress, it may bode well for the markets. But let's face it, the results of the $25 billion "bailout" to retool American automaker plants to be able to make smaller, more fuel efficient cars and thereby save American jobs that may otherwise be lost, won't really have an effect in the real economy for years.

Oh, for the love of God!

It's a guessing game right now, and while no one can tell the direction of the market, one can usually get a gut feeling. But I have to admit I don't know what in the hell the direction is. Maybe a little rally tomorrow? But another pullback on Friday to end the week dismally? Those would be my "guesses."

But I'm still buying the market right now however. And I'm also watching that 7,882 number. I'm looking to see if we are still past the worst of our troubles.

IT WAS THE ECONOMY, STUPID

2008-11-05T16:49:00.000-08:00

Really. Since when is a democratic victory something that is truly perceived 'good for the economy?' Yeah, we all know that it was the economy, stupid that cost John McCain the presidency, and all but tossed republicans on their asses in the House and Senate, holding majorities and actually gaining seats. Of course #43 had quite a lot to do with it as well. I'm man enough to own up to that. He's had a pretty rough go of it for the last couple of years. And yes, I'm going to say it; George W. Bush has done more to divide the republican party in 8 years than anyone perhaps in the history of the GOP. We now have our work ahead of us. A lot of work. We have to rebuild this thing. It isn't going to be easy.

Back to the economy.

A guy at work today who is a staunch Obama supporter swore up and down we'd see the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 10,000 points today as a result of the Obama victory.

What?

I laughed. I entertained the idea. But I laughed. I then softly explained to him that the stock market is about business. It's about capitalism. It's not about socialism. It's not about higher corporate taxes. It's not about redistribution of wealth. It's not about big government and lots and lots of regulation. It's never historically been about democrats.

Today the Dow shed a whopping 486 points to settle at around 9,139. That's right in line with what the market should have done in the event democrats would be in power. The truth is that in order for us to have seen the Dow reach the 10,000 plus point number, we'd have had to have seen John McCain headed for the White House. That obviously did not happen, and neither did the huge rally we would have seen today on Wall Street if it had. If we would have seen a small rally today, it would have been more about certainty in the markets than about any strides the democrats might make with regard to resurrecting the economy.

This is not to say that the economy will, however, not see a rebound. In fact, it's very highly likely that we'll see this happen during president Barack Obama's historic first term in office. The fact is that if all predictions come true, we'll see the end of this bear market in 2010 or 2011. That's not Barack Obama policy working the markets and the economy. That's just the order of business. That's how the cycle works.

Of course Barack will get the credit for the whole thing. He'll be hailed and honored. He'll probably even see himself enter into a second term in office. It's almost inevitable. He doesn't really need to do a whole lot. The cycles will work in his favor. Plus, with control of both the House and the Senate, he won't have much difficulty getting things passed, though his nationalized health care idea is still a huge pipe-dream. We won't see it happen in our lifetimes.

The Dow will be at 10,000 or better soon enough. It didn't happen today. It won't happen tomorrow. In fact, I'd venture to say we won't see 10,000 until mid 2009 at the very earliest. Again, I'm no expert, but I can make observations. Here's why I think so.

We know who the president is going to be. That takes out that important question. That's that certainty I was talking about. But there's much we don't really know yet. The market now has to be concerned about what President Obama is actually going to do now that he is the president. That piece of uncertainty, in my opinion, will hold back any major surge in the Dow for the short term.

In January when he actually takes office we'll get our first real glimpse. We'll see the future through his first 90 days in office. Once we have that better picture, then its off to better times. Then we can start pricing in Obama policy in our stock valuations. And then we can begin the healing process.

Yes, we can.

Let's just not get ahead of ourselves.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WINS THE PRESIDENCY

2008-11-05T03:43:00.000-08:00

Last night history was made, and I must admit some gratitude for being witness to it. It's a once in a lifetime deal. We now have the first black president in our America's history, the 44th president, Barack Hussein Obama. That, despite my clear leanings toward the John McCain camp, and the vote I cast in the polls yesterday for his potential presidency that would never be.

Whoever is in office, I of course, will support. After all, this is still indeed the United States of America, and clearly the American people have spoken. Whether or not I agree with the result, that's our system at work and one cannot be angry at that. Now we have only the task of moving forward and getting down to business. There's a big job ahead for this new president.

EVEN GOD HIMSELF WOULD NOT BE A SOCIALIST

2008-10-30T14:39:00.000-07:00

There was an interesting analogy I heard recently to describe one of the major flaws with the whole concept of socialism, and while I cannot recall who made it, I can recall that I found it to be profoundly accurate.

You work hard in class and you study even harder. You do everything you can to learn the materials, and as a result you receive an 'A.' But Tommy, who sits right beside you isn't such a good student as you, and he doesn't spend the time nor does he have the inclination to work hard. As a result of his lackluster performance Tommy receives a 'D.' Seeing this, the teacher thinks this is unfair, and so she says to you that you must give some of your grade to Tommy to level the playing field. It's only fair, right? Why should Tommy be disadvantaged? And why wouldn't you be willing to give up some of your higher score? After all, a 'B' or a 'C' is still a passing grade, and you've got all those extra points. You can afford to give them up so that Tommy can have his fair share.

It sounds farfetched, I'll give you that. It's not exactly apples to apples either. But the underlying message is the same. Socialism rewards those who do not deserve to be rewarded, and punishes those who do. For all of its good intention toward fairness or to the so-called leveling of the playing field, it also leaves behind no real incentive to try hard at anything. Theoretically speaking, it stands to reason that if America would have begun its economic course based on socialist ideals rather than on capitalist ones, America would be a very different place indeed. It's why we must think very long and hard about what our priorities are before we decide to elect Barack Obama to the White House. It simply can't be that the majority of Americans feel that Tommy should get a higher score at the expense of the honor student's efforts. But that's exactly what Americans will be saying if Obama gets elected.

Look, I agree that everyone indeed deserves a fair opportunity to achieve their every wish and dream. Under a capitalist system that opportunity does exist. It is a fair playing field. But opportunity is not a handout. You have to work for it. You have to be willing to take on risk. You have to act instead of talk. You have to commit as opposed to simply wanting. You have to have the guts to do whatever it takes rather than complain about what you don't have. Capitalism is a system that holds one accountable to themselves for the success or failure they ultimately attain. At the end of the day the ball is in your court. You do with it what you will.

Okay, time for a quick joke:

This guy goes to the altar one day and says to God, "I've read every page of the Bible and read a verse a day. I go to Church every single Sunday, and sometimes I even go on Wednesday. Lord, I do your bidding always, being kind and helpful and nurturing and spreading your good word. All I ask Lord is that you let me win the lottery."

Suddenly the man is awash in a most powerful, warm light, and he hears a commanding voice speak to him. "You will win the lottery, my son," the voice says. The man knew it was God.
And so he went home and waited. The first drawing went by, then the second. There was a third and then a fourth. But the man did not win the lottery as God had promised him.
So the man returned to the altar, clearly angered and confused. "Lord, I just don't get it. I've done your bidding. And I asked to win the lottery. You told me I would indeed win. Yet, Lord, I have won nothing at all."
Again the man was awash in a most powerful, warm light. The voice said to the man standing at the altar, "Buy a lottery ticket!"

That said, it is clear that even God Himself would not be a socialist. He cannot give you anything you cannot, or will not give to yourself. I'm not going to speak for the Big Guy in the Sky, but I think it's evident that He would be voting for John McCain this November 4th.

We all should consider to do the same or the word achievement will sadly become synonymous with the word charity.

WHEN WARREN BUFFET MOVES, SO SHOULD YOU

2008-10-19T10:32:00.001-07:00

By all accounts, Warren Buffet is an amazing man. Not only did he recently overtake the former long-standing 'richest man,' Bill Gates, as the new richest man extraordinaire, but he's made all of his money by being a marvelously apt picker of great companies in which to invest. That certainly speaks volumes for the guy's know-how when it comes to the markets. And when Warren Buffet makes a move, everyone would be wise to pay very close attention. He knows how to make money.

Of course, no one has the ability to gaze into a crystal ball and foresee the near term, and neither does Warren Buffet. He said in a recent New York Times opinion page article, "I can't predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven't the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month—or a year—from now."

That said, he does believe that in the long haul the markets will be substantially higher long before sentiment or the economy improves. Therefore, he says "if you wait for the robins, spring will be over."

Of course he's talking about those investors who are sitting on the sidelines with their cash, waiting for signs that the market is going to get better. He's talking about those guys who are looking for that ever important bottom. But those guys are also only looking at things with the short-term aspect of the economy and stock market in mind. That's bad news, says Buffet, and strongly suggests that the value of cash will depreciate while equities will appreciate, leaving those cash-full investors holding on to less value to throw at the market once that sentiment and economy does improve, essentially doubling their woes by having missed that very important upturn in the market in the first place.

Granted, it's still important to pick fundamentally sound and strong companies. You can't just buy anything here. You have to look for those companies who can weather the storm, and who have simply been beaten down because everyone is taking a beating.

The simple truth is that in five, ten, even twenty years from now, anyone investing in this market today is going to be very happy with the value of their portfolio tomorrow. Warren Buffet sure seems to think this is true, and I think he's absolutely right. Who could possibly argue with the Oracle of Omaha on a point like that?

Historically the best time to invest in the stock market has been when everyone else is running for the door. I wrote about this to some extent in an earlier blog entitled, "Jittery investors give me the cheaps." Stocks are on a blowout clearance the likes of which we have not seen for at least a couple of decades. It's also not going to come around again any time soon. So if you miss it, it's gone.

I firmly believe that history will again repeat itself. And this, the great economic crisis of 2008, will have historically proven to have made the riches of those who dared to proceed contrary to the current sentiment.

SADLY, I THINK THE REPUBLICANS HAVE LOST THE WHITE HOUSE

2008-10-19T07:44:00.000-07:00

Now that the debates are over, where do we go from here? It's clear as indicated by most of the polls that Obama has the lead in the race, and I fear he's actually going to win the election. But it won't be because his policies are better than John McCain's. It won't be because he is the more qualified of the two candidates. It won't be because he should have won, but because John McCain failed to connect with the American people in the way that he desperately needed to during his campaign.

Look, the established loyals weren't the people that John McCain had to speak to during the debates. It was that group of undecided voters he needed to latch onto. And on that task I think he simply failed. He was speaking to dedicated republicans and McCain loyalists during the debates and we already know the answers to the question why a John McCain presidency would be better for America! We weren't the ones that needed to be convinced.

This sad truth puts the prospects of a McCain administration in serious jeopardy, and I predict that Obama will win the White House despite it all.

What happens to the economy then is anyone's guess.

MCCAIN NEEDS TO INVIGORATE HIS CAMPAIGN WITH FIRE AND PASSION

2008-10-08T07:51:00.000-07:00

After the conclusion of the second of three planned presidential debates, John McCain again is trailing in the polls. Unfortunately, while he's the guy I'm rooting for, it's not that difficult to discern why exactly that is.

People are looking for charisma. They want a strong voice and they want a clear message. They see that in Barack Obama, and to a large extent it was exactly those same qualities that sparked the initial interest in Gov. Sarah Palin. She had passion and fire, and most of all you could tell. But she's not running for president.

The sad truth is that McCain has been less than clear in the debates about just exactly what his policies are, and that's the one place where most Americans will decide who they are going to vote for come November 4th. If McCain can't get his message across clearly to the American people during the debates, and if he can't muster up the fire and passion to excite the audience, it could very well be at the risk of the election. Based on what I've seen so far, I think it may actually be too late.

It's not that McCain doesn't have a plan. If you've been following McCain through his campaign websites, or listening to his prepared speeches, the plan is clear. You know what his vision for America is, and I'd argue that McCain's vision is leagues ahead of his opponent's.

But Barack has better delivery, and McCain, at times, seems to have difficulty articulating his ideas. One CNN poll has suggested that viewers of the debate felt that Barack Obama was the more intelligent candidate. Yet another said that John McCain acted more like a typical politician than his opponent, despite his message that "change is coming." These are all things that McCain has to work hard to dispel. Bush has been criticized—I think to a large extent, unfairly—for not being too smart, and certainly his policies have been highly unpopular with the majority of Americans. Many people, although I disagree, have made comparisons between McCain's and Bush's policies. Senator McCain needs very badly to quell Americans fears that he will be just another war mongering, fumbling buffoon in the White House. Not that I'm making any assertions here as to President Bush's time in office, but if you ask most people, that's what they think about the current administration true or not.

What we need to see from John McCain is something more akin to the last five minutes of his speech before the RNC at the convention. We need to see that fire and that passion, and we need to hear that message that will reinvigorate the ideals of the American dream, of patriotism and love for country.

"Stand up!" he said. "Stand up and fight!" That's exactly what McCain needs to say, and it's also what he needs to do to win this election. We know he's got it in him, but frankly the man just seems a little tired.

FOR MCCAIN-PALIN, OVER THE HILL BUT NOT QUITE THROUGH THE WOODS

2008-10-03T10:53:00.001-07:00

The vice presidential debate, Thursday, between Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden simply could not have gotten here fast enough. It was a dreadfully long wait. In fact, it was utterly agonizing. Every part of me knew that this debate undeniably would stand as a very critical one, the contents of which could inarguably throw the election in favor of the other guy. If Sarah Palin were to screw up now, that was it. We were done. Kaput.

But it wasn't going to be over until it was over. Just getting there was only half the battle. Now we had to watch it.

Turning on the TV, I was a literal bag of nerves. Now, don't get me wrong here. Of course I think that McCain made the right choice when he picked the Governor of Alaska to be his running mate. Of course I think that while not fully qualified on day one, that she certainly does have the stuff to be the president if suddenly McCain kicks the bucket. Yet still...

It's a nervousness akin to watching President Bush just before taking up the presidential podium. Or like watching Gerald Ford debark an airplane. You know that for the most part your guy is in command. But somewhere in the back drop, an ominous and looming dark shadow prevails. We've been here all too often before.

The trip. That one fatal step that would send the sitting president falling straight onto his ass.

Now, you can bet your good, hard-earned money that Lorne Michaels and Tina Fey were watching this debate with eager anticipation as well. But their nerves were steel. For them there were no doubts at all. The trip was coming. Palin was going to deliver the one-two to the punchline, and there you'd have it.

There goes our meal ticket, baby.

If the world of the debate were more like the world of the Looney Tunes, Michaels and Fey would not see Sarah Palin at all, but rather a talking, buttered slice of bread.

But it never happened. That fatal err. There were no gaffes to speak of. No requests for that lifeline as Fey would joke. No bereft stare. There was nothing at all but concise, direct, and pointed arguments in favor of the McCain-Palin ticket, and a clear sense that Palin really does have something to stifle the echoes between those two ears of hers.

For me there was a sigh of relief. A sense of victory, and of affirmation.

Now I'm just going to have to watch SNL this weekend to see what they've replaced their Sarah Palin jokes with.

FAILED BAILOUT BILL SHOULD HAVE PASSED

2008-09-29T14:36:00.000-07:00

I want to make one thing perfectly clear right here at the start that I am a free market capitalist. A business that makes bad business decisions or that does not effectively compete in the marketplace, will and should be allowed to topple of its own accord, heedless of the sometimes terrible and devastating consequences. Enron would be a good example here. So would be Arthur Anderson that fell apart in the wake of Enron's demise.

That leads me to the current situation we have with the banks and the proposed $700 billion bailout which failed in Congress today. I am fit to be tied with House republicans who cast a "no" vote for this very important bill. Where are their heads at? Their sitting president is calling for it. So is their presidential nominee. I think most Americans, though admittedly there is a hefty opposition, are also calling for it.

But, republicans say. We have to consider free market capitalism here.

Fine. Dandy. Swell, all. But honestly I don't think the idea of free market capitalism really applies here when it's the entire financial system in crisis, which if we don't fix it, could topple the entire US economy and throw us into the worst recession we've ever seen. This is not like Enron or Arthur Anderson at all.

And what about this ridiculous argument that was made by Minority Leader John Boehner (I think that's pronounced boner) that "we could have gotten (the bill) passed today had it not been for...partisan speech that the Speaker gave on the floor of the House?"

So, because Nancy Pelosi happened to have said some things that republicans didn't like about the president's economic policy which, in the democrats opinion, has been a large contributor to the current economic crisis, we just instead prefer to let the economy go into yet more freefall? We all know that socialist democratic urgings in the Congress to sell the American dream to those who, it now appears obvious, could not afford to pay for, was at least one large contributor.

But this is moot. It's an obvious case of he said, she said, and it really doesn't matter right now. Who gives a flying copulation who did what, when, or how? Right now the issue is the shoring up of an economy that is about to implode.

Hey folks. Wise up. We can argue the details later, thank you, and decide after we've gotten this bull by the horns whose heads we may want delivered on plates.

What we need to do now is get a bill passed.

AFTER THE 1ST DEBATE, MY ANALYSIS

2008-09-27T08:14:00.000-07:00

After watching the 1st presidential debate last night, I feel that, overall, John McCain did rather well. But sadly he missed his opportunity in the first 30 or so minutes where the main focus was on the economy. I think McCain would have done well to talk more about his decision to suspend his campaign in order to return to Washington to focus on the economic issues facing our country. This was a big move for him, and I think the action he took was something most Americans, including those on board with Obama, could appreciate as the American thing to do considering the current economic condition.

Instead he talked about earmarks, which are indeed an important issue. No one needs to be told that there is a ton of wasteful use of taxpayers money on Capitol Hill that needs to be stopped.

But what I, and I think the majority of American people, were waiting to hear about were job creation, stabilizing the credit markets, and specific plans to stimulate the beleaguered economy, including how we will deal with foreign oil going forward. We also wanted to hear specific plans McCain or Obama would put to use on their first day in office in January 2009 to bring to a head the worst financial crisis our country has faced in nearly 25 years. Jim Lehrer even asked the candidates to lay out their thoughts and ideas regarding the proposed $700 billion bailout plan. Neither candidate really told us much at all, except to say that we would need bipartisan cooperation to get something done.

Don't get me wrong. Not that I think that Barack Obama has the better plan for the economy. In fact, I'm not so sure I agree entirely with either candidate on that issue.

Personally, I think that there is much chaos and shenanigans going on on Wall Street that needs to be looked at, and while I support giving tax breaks to corporations, I feel that they must be conditional. We need to make sure that those tax breaks we offer are conducted in a manner that ensures job creation and encourages higher wages for the average American, and better access to benefits. Not higher CEO salaries. We need to make language like this clear when we offer the tax incentives. You pay your workers more and we'll give you more. You pay more of a worker's health care benefits, we'll give you more. And on and on.

Where McCain did well, and not surprisingly, was on matters of national security and foreign policy. Both areas I feel McCain is best equipped to lead. In this area he blew the socks off Barack Obama, and very clearly so.

As to who won? I'd have to go with John McCain here. But I do think it was close.

And so, we move on to the next presidential debate which will be on October 7th. Until then we have the vice presidential debate to look forward to, which will take place October 2nd. We can only hope that debate will stand as yet another defining moment for Gov. Palin of Alaska.