From Politico: Obama to GOP: 'I Won'
“We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that’s being proposed in the House bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said after meeting with Obama.
“How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” Boehner asked. “How does that stimulate the economy?”
It doesn't. This is a hint of what our new stimulus package is going to include: millions of dollars of worthless pet projects that will do nothing to turn the economy around. But that's the way politics operates. A nice spending package is put together, full of worthwhile projects. Then this is added, and that is added. The millions pile up. And suddenly contraceptives have become an important piece of the legislation.
How do these people get away with this? And how do they sleep at night? This is not how I want my tax money spent!!!
Pelosi suggested that the package, currently at $825 billion, could become even larger.
“It has grown,” Pelosi said, “and we’re still in the process.”
It's going to be funny to see what else these people can find to spend our money on.
But worst of all are the refundable tax credits that will be paid out to those who don't earn enough to pay taxes. In essence, the government will now be using my tax money to pay people for being poor!! How do I get in on that deal? Why would people want all these new jobs the government is creating if they are going to be paid by the government to sit around and do nothing?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
If I Were President: The Bailout
I'll begin by saying I don't support a bailout of any kind. But the Democrats must spend, so I just want them to spend the right way.
The source of this entire financial fiasco was the mortgage meltdown. If you want to bring the economy out of recession, you have to start by fixing the mortgage problem. And you don't fix the mortgage problem by throwing money at the problem loans that are going to go into foreclosure no matter how much help they receive. You also don't fix the problem by giving money to the banks without helping the people the banks have lent to.
I propose we take a couple hundred billion out of this upcoming stimulus bill and use it to pay down the balances of mortgages that are current and held by responsible people who can afford to continue paying the mortgage. With $200 Billion, you could pay down 4 million mortgages by $50,000. The mortgage holders not only receive a huge infusion of cash from these paydowns, but the American people would also benefit tremendously. This could pay off quite a few mortgages completely, freeing up a monthly sum of money that will be infused into the economy. The paydown would also help a large number of people who are upside down on their mortgages. These people would now be able to refinance their mortgages at the lower principal amount, if they so desired, reducing their monthly payments, which would also free up cash to be infused into the economy. It's a complete win-win, not only for the mortgage holders, but for millions of people who need help.
I'm sick of the banks receiving billions of dollars without helping a single person with that money. How much better off would we be if the first bailout had gone to pay down mortgages instead of just sitting in the vaults of these huge corporations who love hoarding money?
The source of this entire financial fiasco was the mortgage meltdown. If you want to bring the economy out of recession, you have to start by fixing the mortgage problem. And you don't fix the mortgage problem by throwing money at the problem loans that are going to go into foreclosure no matter how much help they receive. You also don't fix the problem by giving money to the banks without helping the people the banks have lent to.
I propose we take a couple hundred billion out of this upcoming stimulus bill and use it to pay down the balances of mortgages that are current and held by responsible people who can afford to continue paying the mortgage. With $200 Billion, you could pay down 4 million mortgages by $50,000. The mortgage holders not only receive a huge infusion of cash from these paydowns, but the American people would also benefit tremendously. This could pay off quite a few mortgages completely, freeing up a monthly sum of money that will be infused into the economy. The paydown would also help a large number of people who are upside down on their mortgages. These people would now be able to refinance their mortgages at the lower principal amount, if they so desired, reducing their monthly payments, which would also free up cash to be infused into the economy. It's a complete win-win, not only for the mortgage holders, but for millions of people who need help.
I'm sick of the banks receiving billions of dollars without helping a single person with that money. How much better off would we be if the first bailout had gone to pay down mortgages instead of just sitting in the vaults of these huge corporations who love hoarding money?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Banks Teeter
Read this for a discussion of the state of the financial system.
"The size of the problem is growing faster than the banks' ability to handle it," said Joe Battipaglia, market strategist at Stifel Nicolaus. "We're halfway through the bailout money, and the banks are in worse shape than they were six months ago."
Investors expect Obama's team to consider a range of options, including pumping more money into banks and creating a government entity to buy up bad bank assets so they'll start lending again.
What makes us think that throwing another few hundred billion is going to make things any better? Why do we want these large banks to stay afloat? Wouldn't we be better off letting them die, and let the smaller banks with better management grow stronger?
And what makes us think that the government could run the banking system any better than the current boards and CEOs? Politicians generally did not go to school to learn about business. Politicians generally don't have a business background. I wouldn't trust my money in a bank that is owned and operated by our government.
The most troubled banks are "going to definitely go down" without more government help, said Jonathan Macey, a law professor at Yale University who wrote a book about a bailout of Sweden's banking system during the 1990s.
"And they may go down with it," he added. "The pace of these bank losses is outrunning the infusions by the government."
The banks have had their chance. If there has to be a bailout (and what would Democrats do if they weren't spending money), it's time to bail out the people and NOT the companies. How about using bailout funds to pay down the mortgages of those of us who have been responsible homeowners? Paying down our mortgages would not only be beneficial to us as homeowners, but that money would be a huge cash infusion to the banks and holders of out mortgages anyway. It's a win-win. Why can't those in charge figure this out? Because they don't want to? Because they have another agenda?
"The size of the problem is growing faster than the banks' ability to handle it," said Joe Battipaglia, market strategist at Stifel Nicolaus. "We're halfway through the bailout money, and the banks are in worse shape than they were six months ago."
Investors expect Obama's team to consider a range of options, including pumping more money into banks and creating a government entity to buy up bad bank assets so they'll start lending again.
What makes us think that throwing another few hundred billion is going to make things any better? Why do we want these large banks to stay afloat? Wouldn't we be better off letting them die, and let the smaller banks with better management grow stronger?
And what makes us think that the government could run the banking system any better than the current boards and CEOs? Politicians generally did not go to school to learn about business. Politicians generally don't have a business background. I wouldn't trust my money in a bank that is owned and operated by our government.
The most troubled banks are "going to definitely go down" without more government help, said Jonathan Macey, a law professor at Yale University who wrote a book about a bailout of Sweden's banking system during the 1990s.
"And they may go down with it," he added. "The pace of these bank losses is outrunning the infusions by the government."
The banks have had their chance. If there has to be a bailout (and what would Democrats do if they weren't spending money), it's time to bail out the people and NOT the companies. How about using bailout funds to pay down the mortgages of those of us who have been responsible homeowners? Paying down our mortgages would not only be beneficial to us as homeowners, but that money would be a huge cash infusion to the banks and holders of out mortgages anyway. It's a win-win. Why can't those in charge figure this out? Because they don't want to? Because they have another agenda?
If I Were President: The Economy
I believe in the constitutional provision for separation of church and state. I wish there were an additional separation of economy and state.
If I were president, I would do all I could to get government out of private business as much as possible.
I believe in less regulation.
I believe in lower taxes.
I believe in free trade, not only within the country, but also internationally as well.
What about all the problems with the current economy? I know it hurts, but it's part of the ebb and flow of a free market. For too long, we the people have been living beyond our means, and it's time that we face the consequences. The biggest problem I have with the current environment of bailing out every failing industry is that these industries created the problems themselves. We need to bring back accountability to the free market. They should have to face the consequences, up to and including failure and demise. The lesson they should learn is to be better prepared for swings in the economy. The lesson they ARE learning is that it's okay to play the risk game knowing that the government will bail you for your bad decisions.
What about job losses created by the failure of businesses? It's unfortunate that people who work for these companies lose their jobs, when they generally are innocent bystanders. There is little they can do to avoid this mess. But I firmly believe that new jobs will always be created by stronger, better managed companies. There are jobs for everyone if they are willing to do whatever it takes to land a job, even though it might mean working for less pay or in a new industry or profession.
The best thing for the economy right now is to lower taxes. This would mean more money in the pockets of those who are willing and able to spend it. Lower taxes would lead to the creation of new jobs. The other side of the equation would be a massive reduction in government spending. I am a proponent of getting the federal budget balanced. This is becoming harder and harder with each new bailout. Under my direction, the government spending would be slashed tremendously. No more earmarks. No more pet projects. No fluff. We'd get our debt back under control.
There will always be down times in a free economy. We just need to learn to prepare for these down times. It's a tough lesson to learn, but we the people can accomplish anything.
If I were president, I would do all I could to get government out of private business as much as possible.
I believe in less regulation.
I believe in lower taxes.
I believe in free trade, not only within the country, but also internationally as well.
What about all the problems with the current economy? I know it hurts, but it's part of the ebb and flow of a free market. For too long, we the people have been living beyond our means, and it's time that we face the consequences. The biggest problem I have with the current environment of bailing out every failing industry is that these industries created the problems themselves. We need to bring back accountability to the free market. They should have to face the consequences, up to and including failure and demise. The lesson they should learn is to be better prepared for swings in the economy. The lesson they ARE learning is that it's okay to play the risk game knowing that the government will bail you for your bad decisions.
What about job losses created by the failure of businesses? It's unfortunate that people who work for these companies lose their jobs, when they generally are innocent bystanders. There is little they can do to avoid this mess. But I firmly believe that new jobs will always be created by stronger, better managed companies. There are jobs for everyone if they are willing to do whatever it takes to land a job, even though it might mean working for less pay or in a new industry or profession.
The best thing for the economy right now is to lower taxes. This would mean more money in the pockets of those who are willing and able to spend it. Lower taxes would lead to the creation of new jobs. The other side of the equation would be a massive reduction in government spending. I am a proponent of getting the federal budget balanced. This is becoming harder and harder with each new bailout. Under my direction, the government spending would be slashed tremendously. No more earmarks. No more pet projects. No fluff. We'd get our debt back under control.
There will always be down times in a free economy. We just need to learn to prepare for these down times. It's a tough lesson to learn, but we the people can accomplish anything.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama is the Anti-Christ?
My good friend Verle, who is little bit of a Bible nut, sent the text below to me, with comments in (parenthesis). My own comments are in [brackets]. While Obama may yet prove to be evil, I just don't see this chapter in John as applying to him. Still, it's interesting to think about.
THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN THE DIVINE CHAPTER 13
John sees fierce-looking beasts which represent degenerate earthly kingdoms controlled by Satan-The devil works miracles and deceives men.
1 I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
(Obama was Born in Hawaii)
[Obama doesn't have seven heads or ten horns. What is the name of blasphemy?]
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
(Presidency?)
[That would make we the people of the US of A the dragon. I don't think so. I'm still more apt to believe the beast is a reference to the UN or the European Union or some similar agency...even OPEC would make more sense to me.]
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
(Possible assassination attempt?)
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
(the sickening display of the "Obama Worshippers" who say he is the great gift to the country)
[I haven't heard any rhetoric that would lead me to believe Obama's foreign policy will be strong enough to prevent anyone from making war against us...in fact, quite the opposite.]
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
(Very influential speaker - Obama?)
[One of those 3 1/2 year periods that John was so fond of writing about]
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
(the sickening display of the "Obama Worshippers" who say he is the great gift to the country)
[Just doesn't make sense to me]
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
(Military Rule)
[Who would this second beast be? I'm not saying this is what I believe, but it makes more sense that the second beast would be Obama. But probably another consortium of countries of some sort]
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
(Nuclear WAR?)
[I've always wondered if that's the way the Middle East would end up going]
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
(Need for food Storage)
[or gold/other commodities usable for barter]
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
[What would this have to do with Obama?]
THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN THE DIVINE CHAPTER 13
John sees fierce-looking beasts which represent degenerate earthly kingdoms controlled by Satan-The devil works miracles and deceives men.
1 I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
(Obama was Born in Hawaii)
[Obama doesn't have seven heads or ten horns. What is the name of blasphemy?]
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
(Presidency?)
[That would make we the people of the US of A the dragon. I don't think so. I'm still more apt to believe the beast is a reference to the UN or the European Union or some similar agency...even OPEC would make more sense to me.]
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
(Possible assassination attempt?)
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
(the sickening display of the "Obama Worshippers" who say he is the great gift to the country)
[I haven't heard any rhetoric that would lead me to believe Obama's foreign policy will be strong enough to prevent anyone from making war against us...in fact, quite the opposite.]
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
(Very influential speaker - Obama?)
[One of those 3 1/2 year periods that John was so fond of writing about]
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
(the sickening display of the "Obama Worshippers" who say he is the great gift to the country)
[Just doesn't make sense to me]
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
(Military Rule)
[Who would this second beast be? I'm not saying this is what I believe, but it makes more sense that the second beast would be Obama. But probably another consortium of countries of some sort]
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
(Nuclear WAR?)
[I've always wondered if that's the way the Middle East would end up going]
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
(Need for food Storage)
[or gold/other commodities usable for barter]
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
[What would this have to do with Obama?]
Monday, January 19, 2009
A Question of Leadership
Can someone be a great leader if the direction he leads us is wrong?
I did not vote for Obama, nor do I agree with many of his positions. But I get a sense that people are getting behind him more so than in the recent past. I also get the feeling that at least for a little while, there will be great momentum towards getting a lot accomplished.
I've always been impressed by Obama's charisma. I've been impressed with his ability to garner support against great odds. He exudes confidence, and that confidence and hope seems to be contagious. These are traits of a great leader.
But is he really a great leader if the decisions he makes, while giving people hope in the short-run prove to be detrimental over the course of time? That's my greatest fear for his presidency.
People may be so blinded by this new hope that they overlook what Obama is actually accomplishing in office.
I did not vote for Obama, nor do I agree with many of his positions. But I get a sense that people are getting behind him more so than in the recent past. I also get the feeling that at least for a little while, there will be great momentum towards getting a lot accomplished.
I've always been impressed by Obama's charisma. I've been impressed with his ability to garner support against great odds. He exudes confidence, and that confidence and hope seems to be contagious. These are traits of a great leader.
But is he really a great leader if the decisions he makes, while giving people hope in the short-run prove to be detrimental over the course of time? That's my greatest fear for his presidency.
People may be so blinded by this new hope that they overlook what Obama is actually accomplishing in office.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Where Did the Republican Party Go?
An interesting blog post on Daily KOs discussed the downfall of the Republican Party.
My own take on the state of the Republican Party is similar. From an ideological standpoint, the GOP has progressed to the point where the Democratic party was about 20 years ago. Instead of small government, the Republicans are grown the size of the government. Instead of decreased government spending, the administration has spent more than any other presidency. Instead of free-market economy, the government has provided the largest ever bailout to Wall Street. These are all qualities that I would normally associate with the Democrats.
This is what I faced when I went to the polls. I could either vote for Obama, a liberal Democrat, or I could vote for McCain, a "conservative Democrat". That to me is not a choice I want to make, and in fact I voted for neither, instead voting for a third-party candidate.
If the Republican party ever wants my support, they need to find themselves again. They need to get back to basics. They need to remember who they are supposed to be and what they are supposed to represent. Until then, I will hope for the rise of a new political party that better represents my beliefs, ideas, and values.
My own take on the state of the Republican Party is similar. From an ideological standpoint, the GOP has progressed to the point where the Democratic party was about 20 years ago. Instead of small government, the Republicans are grown the size of the government. Instead of decreased government spending, the administration has spent more than any other presidency. Instead of free-market economy, the government has provided the largest ever bailout to Wall Street. These are all qualities that I would normally associate with the Democrats.
This is what I faced when I went to the polls. I could either vote for Obama, a liberal Democrat, or I could vote for McCain, a "conservative Democrat". That to me is not a choice I want to make, and in fact I voted for neither, instead voting for a third-party candidate.
If the Republican party ever wants my support, they need to find themselves again. They need to get back to basics. They need to remember who they are supposed to be and what they are supposed to represent. Until then, I will hope for the rise of a new political party that better represents my beliefs, ideas, and values.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Bernanke: More bank bailouts needed
This headline is found on CNNMoney.
My hope is that Bernanke is talking about the second half of the original $700 Billion TARP money instead of an additional amount of money over and above the $700 Billion. Either way, it does not cease to amaze me how ridiculous this whole thing has gotten to be.
The country has fallen down the slippery slope. We passed the original $700 Billion after a lot of huffing and puffing. Now the $700 Billion has become the new landmark against which to compare future efforts. Obama's proposed $775 Billion stimulus package no longer sounds excessive. Do you remember how you felt a year ago when Bush proposed his $30-something billion stimulus package? Didn't it sound like a huge sum of money at the time?
Bernanke suggested that more banks and financial firms are likely to need additional capital injections from the government, and that further guarantees of their debt could be necessary, in return for the federal government receiving further equity in the firms.
Doesn't this sound like a further move towards a socialized banking system, which I'm thinking must be the intent of the Fed in the long run.
"Everything he's saying is right; we have a lot of tools and we have to use them wisely," said Barry Ritholtz, CEO and director of equity research for research firm Fusion IQ. But Ritholtz added that the bailout has already been mismanaged by the Treasury Department.
Why do we want to put the Treasury Department in charge of more taxpayer funds if the consensus opinion is that they have so poorly managed the original funds? Two wrongs don't make a right. Neither do 700,000,000,000 wrongs.
Bernanke dismissed this risk, however, saying that inflation appears well-contained in the near term. And he said despite the fact that the Fed is taking on much riskier assets than normal as collateral, he does not believe there is a major risk of having those loans go bad.
"The Federal Reserve has never suffered any losses in the course of its normal lending to banks" and Wall Street firms, he said.
Investing 101 tells us that past results should not be considered an indicator of future returns. Just because the Fed hasn't lost money in the past doesn't mean the same will hold true. It seems to me Bernanke has not come to the realization yet that this is a unique problem and the standard solutions are not necessarily going to work again and again.
This has the feel of an out-of-control driver. The car begins to fishtail, the driver over-corrects, and the car skids out of control the other direction. In this case, my biggest fear is that the Fed overreacts and the economy skids out of control in the other direction. In this case, the other direction is inflation.
A good article from CNNMoney about the potential threat of inflation can be found here.
My hope is that Bernanke is talking about the second half of the original $700 Billion TARP money instead of an additional amount of money over and above the $700 Billion. Either way, it does not cease to amaze me how ridiculous this whole thing has gotten to be.
The country has fallen down the slippery slope. We passed the original $700 Billion after a lot of huffing and puffing. Now the $700 Billion has become the new landmark against which to compare future efforts. Obama's proposed $775 Billion stimulus package no longer sounds excessive. Do you remember how you felt a year ago when Bush proposed his $30-something billion stimulus package? Didn't it sound like a huge sum of money at the time?
Bernanke suggested that more banks and financial firms are likely to need additional capital injections from the government, and that further guarantees of their debt could be necessary, in return for the federal government receiving further equity in the firms.
Doesn't this sound like a further move towards a socialized banking system, which I'm thinking must be the intent of the Fed in the long run.
"Everything he's saying is right; we have a lot of tools and we have to use them wisely," said Barry Ritholtz, CEO and director of equity research for research firm Fusion IQ. But Ritholtz added that the bailout has already been mismanaged by the Treasury Department.
Why do we want to put the Treasury Department in charge of more taxpayer funds if the consensus opinion is that they have so poorly managed the original funds? Two wrongs don't make a right. Neither do 700,000,000,000 wrongs.
Bernanke dismissed this risk, however, saying that inflation appears well-contained in the near term. And he said despite the fact that the Fed is taking on much riskier assets than normal as collateral, he does not believe there is a major risk of having those loans go bad.
"The Federal Reserve has never suffered any losses in the course of its normal lending to banks" and Wall Street firms, he said.
Investing 101 tells us that past results should not be considered an indicator of future returns. Just because the Fed hasn't lost money in the past doesn't mean the same will hold true. It seems to me Bernanke has not come to the realization yet that this is a unique problem and the standard solutions are not necessarily going to work again and again.
This has the feel of an out-of-control driver. The car begins to fishtail, the driver over-corrects, and the car skids out of control the other direction. In this case, my biggest fear is that the Fed overreacts and the economy skids out of control in the other direction. In this case, the other direction is inflation.
A good article from CNNMoney about the potential threat of inflation can be found here.
Monday, January 12, 2009
BCS Proposal
Anyone who knows me knows I can't stand the BCS in its current form. It is unfair to smaller conferences, whose participants have no realistic shot at ever vying for a national championship. This year provided the perfect example as the University of Utah went undefeated with wins against Alabama, Michigan, Oregon State, TCU, and BYU. Yet, they never had any chance at playing for the national championship. They may be the best team in the country, but we will never know what they might have done against Florida.
This doesn't work for me. I want a system that gives every team a shot at winning the title. Along those lines, I don't want a team who can't win their own conference have a shot at the title.
What I propose is a 12 team playoff consisting of the eleven conference champions and one at-large (independent) team. We can use the BCS formula to determine the seeding of the playoff, and the playoff will follow the format the NFL uses, with the top four teams having a bye in the first week of the playoffs. This would provide for some very exciting games not only during the playoffs, but also during the regular season as teams fight to win their way into the playoffs.
Again, I challenge anyone to suggest why the current system would be better than my proposal. Good luck.
This doesn't work for me. I want a system that gives every team a shot at winning the title. Along those lines, I don't want a team who can't win their own conference have a shot at the title.
What I propose is a 12 team playoff consisting of the eleven conference champions and one at-large (independent) team. We can use the BCS formula to determine the seeding of the playoff, and the playoff will follow the format the NFL uses, with the top four teams having a bye in the first week of the playoffs. This would provide for some very exciting games not only during the playoffs, but also during the regular season as teams fight to win their way into the playoffs.
Again, I challenge anyone to suggest why the current system would be better than my proposal. Good luck.
Friday, January 9, 2009
BCS
Since Obama considers it important enough to discuss, I am taking the liberty of raging against the BCS in this blog.
I have yet to hear a legitimate argument for why the BCS is a better system than a playoff for determining a national champion in college football. Can someone please explain this to me?
The argument I've heard most often for keeping the BCS is that financially it is most beneficial to the big conferences from a financial perspective. Here's my argument against this:
This year, I watched two out of the five BCS games. And even those two, I only watched portions of the games. Most years, the National Championship game is the only game I care to watch. The rest of the BCS games are pretty meaningless to me, as they really prove nothing. The exception this year is the Sugar Bowl, where I wanted to see my pick for this year's National Champion, Utah, thrash an overrated Alabama team and show just how bogus it is that the BCS does not allow a team like Utah to have an equal opportunity to be the National Champion.
Compare that to the NFL playoffs. I will generally watch about 8 out of 11 of the NFL playoff games each year. I would watch all 11 each year if I had the time and I wasn't busy with other commitments. The reason for my interest in the playoffs is that every win leads each team closer to the Super Bowl. Every team in the playoffs has a shot at winning. That's what makes it fun.
If the BCS moves to playoff system of some sort, it will certainly expand the number of games I, as an average football fan, would be interested in watching. More viewers for more games would certainly boost the television revenues the NCAA would generate over what they currently rake in. This would be good for the big conferences and would be huge for the small conferences.
I challenge anyone to come up with a good reason for not implementing a playoff system in college football.
I have yet to hear a legitimate argument for why the BCS is a better system than a playoff for determining a national champion in college football. Can someone please explain this to me?
The argument I've heard most often for keeping the BCS is that financially it is most beneficial to the big conferences from a financial perspective. Here's my argument against this:
This year, I watched two out of the five BCS games. And even those two, I only watched portions of the games. Most years, the National Championship game is the only game I care to watch. The rest of the BCS games are pretty meaningless to me, as they really prove nothing. The exception this year is the Sugar Bowl, where I wanted to see my pick for this year's National Champion, Utah, thrash an overrated Alabama team and show just how bogus it is that the BCS does not allow a team like Utah to have an equal opportunity to be the National Champion.
Compare that to the NFL playoffs. I will generally watch about 8 out of 11 of the NFL playoff games each year. I would watch all 11 each year if I had the time and I wasn't busy with other commitments. The reason for my interest in the playoffs is that every win leads each team closer to the Super Bowl. Every team in the playoffs has a shot at winning. That's what makes it fun.
If the BCS moves to playoff system of some sort, it will certainly expand the number of games I, as an average football fan, would be interested in watching. More viewers for more games would certainly boost the television revenues the NCAA would generate over what they currently rake in. This would be good for the big conferences and would be huge for the small conferences.
I challenge anyone to come up with a good reason for not implementing a playoff system in college football.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
New Money
Some of you may be worried about the budget deficit that seems to grow larger and larger by the day. Every time I read an new article, the deficit has expanded again. Now it sits at $1.2 Trillion. That's before Obama's new stimulus package, which could double the deficit.
Where will the money come from?
Taxes will likely increase, regardless of what Obama is telling the people, but tax increases certainly won't make any kind of dent in a deficit like this.
The government will borrow a great deal of money to cover the deficit. Like anyone who possesses a credit card, the US government has a credit limit. It's not an explicitly stated limit, but the credit markets provide that there is an implicit credit limit, where at some point there will be no more investors willing to lend to a government that is so far in debt. While I don't exactly know what that limit might be, I know that point is approaching faster every day.
In the meantime, the last means of covering the budget deficit is to simply print more money. The government continues to dilute the national wealth by printing more dollars. But I don't think we've seen anything yet. If, as I suppose, the US were to reach its credit limit at some future point and could no longer borrow money, the government would run out of options other than to print more money.
An increase in printing money = a decrease in the value of a dollar = an increase in inflation. The faster money is printed, the faster inflation will increase. Should we be frightened?
Where will the money come from?
Taxes will likely increase, regardless of what Obama is telling the people, but tax increases certainly won't make any kind of dent in a deficit like this.
The government will borrow a great deal of money to cover the deficit. Like anyone who possesses a credit card, the US government has a credit limit. It's not an explicitly stated limit, but the credit markets provide that there is an implicit credit limit, where at some point there will be no more investors willing to lend to a government that is so far in debt. While I don't exactly know what that limit might be, I know that point is approaching faster every day.
In the meantime, the last means of covering the budget deficit is to simply print more money. The government continues to dilute the national wealth by printing more dollars. But I don't think we've seen anything yet. If, as I suppose, the US were to reach its credit limit at some future point and could no longer borrow money, the government would run out of options other than to print more money.
An increase in printing money = a decrease in the value of a dollar = an increase in inflation. The faster money is printed, the faster inflation will increase. Should we be frightened?
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Top Ten Issues
My top ten issues facing the nation, in no particular order:
- Economy
- Social Security
- The wars in Iraq/Afghanistan
- Jobs
- Education
- Taxes
- Two-Party System
- Government Corruption
- Health Care
- Housing
Once a week over the next ten weeks, I will write what I title "If I Were President", and discuss what my platform might be in each of these areas if I were going to run for President of the US of A.
Stay tuned.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Bailouts for Everyone!!! (Except You and Me)
We're in the midst of a $700 Billion bailout of the financial system. This is a scary large monetary figure. I was against the bailout, as I am very concerned with the lack of accountability for the bad decisions the large banks and mortgage companies made. They should be punished, and the natural punishment is to fail as an ongoing entity.
The car companies are now going to be bailed out to the tune of $17.4 Billion. In the past, this would have seemed like a gargantuan amount. People would have been outraged instead of accepting of the bailout. This bailout could not have happened without the preceding $700 Billion bailout of the banks to take the heat.
Neither of those bailouts scare me the way Obama's proposed stimulus plan scares me.
Both the $700 Billion and the $17.4 Billion bailouts are being spent on "investments". In other words, they consist of loans or capital infusions for which the government receives stock or warrants. The expectation is that some portion of this money will eventually be returned to the government either as interest, dividends, or capital repayment. In the end, the taxpayers will hopefully not be eating the entire price of the bailout.
Now we have the newest proposal, now estimated at $800 Billion, but potentially rising to more than $1 Trillion. The intent of this proposal is to spend money on infrastructure and job creation. There is no explicit means for providing a return on investment. The money will be gone...spent. This is costing every single person in the country close to $3,000. For my family of four, our share is $12,000. I, for one, can not afford that kind of price tag, no matter how beneficial the result will be to the overall health of the country. Luckily, I shouldn't have to pay it all in one lump sum. But I know that I will be paying it with a small tax increase here and a new tax there. It's likely most people won't even realize their money is being siphoned away from them. Ignorance is bliss.
People tell me I'm a glass half empty kind of person. Can you blame me?
The car companies are now going to be bailed out to the tune of $17.4 Billion. In the past, this would have seemed like a gargantuan amount. People would have been outraged instead of accepting of the bailout. This bailout could not have happened without the preceding $700 Billion bailout of the banks to take the heat.
Neither of those bailouts scare me the way Obama's proposed stimulus plan scares me.
Both the $700 Billion and the $17.4 Billion bailouts are being spent on "investments". In other words, they consist of loans or capital infusions for which the government receives stock or warrants. The expectation is that some portion of this money will eventually be returned to the government either as interest, dividends, or capital repayment. In the end, the taxpayers will hopefully not be eating the entire price of the bailout.
Now we have the newest proposal, now estimated at $800 Billion, but potentially rising to more than $1 Trillion. The intent of this proposal is to spend money on infrastructure and job creation. There is no explicit means for providing a return on investment. The money will be gone...spent. This is costing every single person in the country close to $3,000. For my family of four, our share is $12,000. I, for one, can not afford that kind of price tag, no matter how beneficial the result will be to the overall health of the country. Luckily, I shouldn't have to pay it all in one lump sum. But I know that I will be paying it with a small tax increase here and a new tax there. It's likely most people won't even realize their money is being siphoned away from them. Ignorance is bliss.
People tell me I'm a glass half empty kind of person. Can you blame me?
New Stimulus Details
You can read more about Obama's new stimulus proposal here.
I know this plan will help a lot of people. A number of the large construction companies will see a great deal of increase to their bottom lines. This will be quite a windfall for a number of government contractors. Hooray for them!! I'm sure a large number of blue-collar jobs will be created as a result of the infrastructure work that will be taking place. And believe me, I am all for improving our country's infrastructure.
But does this plan help you and me? I don't see any relief coming for distressed homeowners. I don't see this solving the mortgage crisis. I don't see this stimulus unfreezing the credit markets (and I will be speaking more on this at a later date). In fact, on the surface of the plan, I see absolutely nothing in it for me except a tax increase.
I want our economy to succeed. I want people in general to succeed and find happiness. Will the stimulus plan help get us out of a recession? Maybe. Nobody really knows. There has never been a recession quite like this one. The recession will supposedly end at some point without any government intervention. The stimulus plan is being proposed to hurry the end of the recession. Is it worth $800 Billion to end the recession a few months early?
I know this plan will help a lot of people. A number of the large construction companies will see a great deal of increase to their bottom lines. This will be quite a windfall for a number of government contractors. Hooray for them!! I'm sure a large number of blue-collar jobs will be created as a result of the infrastructure work that will be taking place. And believe me, I am all for improving our country's infrastructure.
But does this plan help you and me? I don't see any relief coming for distressed homeowners. I don't see this solving the mortgage crisis. I don't see this stimulus unfreezing the credit markets (and I will be speaking more on this at a later date). In fact, on the surface of the plan, I see absolutely nothing in it for me except a tax increase.
I want our economy to succeed. I want people in general to succeed and find happiness. Will the stimulus plan help get us out of a recession? Maybe. Nobody really knows. There has never been a recession quite like this one. The recession will supposedly end at some point without any government intervention. The stimulus plan is being proposed to hurry the end of the recession. Is it worth $800 Billion to end the recession a few months early?
Monday, December 22, 2008
My Bailout Proposal
I think the government has this bailout mess all wrong. They are bailing out the wrong people!! They need to use a bottom-up approach rather than a trickle-down approach. And it all needs to start where the mess began...home owners.
I propose the government give all homeowners the option of taking a tax credit of 10% of the purchase price of their primary residence each year for up to ten years. That puts money into taxpayers' pockets now, and provides added incentive for people not only to work harder to stay in their home, but gives potential new home buyers a little more motivation to get into the market.
This would not necessarily be a tax cut, but rather a tax deferral. Each year that a taxpayer chooses to write down the value of his house by 10%, it reduces the cost basis of the house. When the house is later sold, the government would collect a larger amount in capital gains. For example, if the house is sold after ten years, the entire amount of the sale would be taxed at the capital gains rate.
I think this would result in the following:
I propose the government give all homeowners the option of taking a tax credit of 10% of the purchase price of their primary residence each year for up to ten years. That puts money into taxpayers' pockets now, and provides added incentive for people not only to work harder to stay in their home, but gives potential new home buyers a little more motivation to get into the market.
This would not necessarily be a tax cut, but rather a tax deferral. Each year that a taxpayer chooses to write down the value of his house by 10%, it reduces the cost basis of the house. When the house is later sold, the government would collect a larger amount in capital gains. For example, if the house is sold after ten years, the entire amount of the sale would be taxed at the capital gains rate.
I think this would result in the following:
- Distressed homeowners could use the money they receive from the tax credit to get caught up on their mortgages.
- More people would be inclined to buy their first home in order to receive the tax credit. This would reduce the inventory of homes for sale and help to stabilize prices.
- Homeowners would be less likely to sell their homes as a greater percentage of the sales price would be taxable. This would also reduce the inventory of homes for sale, and would drive up prices.
I'm sure there are many kinks to be worked out of this system. What do you think? Any ideas for making this plan better?
More on Social Security
Is there a reason the government is so opposed to letting individuals control their own Social Security funds? I know there are a number of people out there who are, from a financial perspective, less than talented. I'm not proposing that we privatize Social Security (although I'm not opposed to the idea, either), and force everyone to decide what to do with their accounts. I would just like to have the option of controlling my own destiny, so to speak. I strongly believe I could beat the rate of return the government offers on Social Security investments. And if for some reason I can't match that rate, I'm willing to deal with those consequences.
I don't have any facts to back this up, but if I had to guess, I'd say the primary reason we aren't allowed to control the funds in our Social Security accounts is because those funds aren't really there. The money has been spent already, and all that's really sitting in our Social Security accounts is a big fat IOU. Does that thought scare anyone?
I don't have any facts to back this up, but if I had to guess, I'd say the primary reason we aren't allowed to control the funds in our Social Security accounts is because those funds aren't really there. The money has been spent already, and all that's really sitting in our Social Security accounts is a big fat IOU. Does that thought scare anyone?
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Great United States Ponzi Scheme
A lot has been made of the recent discovery of the $50 billion Ponzi Scheme allegedly perpetrated by one Mr. Bernard Madoff.
For those who may not know, a Ponzi scheme is an investment offering an unusually high rate of return. The scheme involves paying said return to its existing participants using money received from new participants rather than paying out actual earned income, as there is little or no underlying income to be had. The scheme is always destined to collapse once there aren't enough new participants to cover the returns owed to the existing participants. (Visit Wikipedia for a more detailed explanation.)
My question is this: we know that Ponzi Schemes are highly illegal due to its fraudulent nature. Does our Social Security system fall into this category? If so, shouldn't the perpetrators of this fraud be prosecuted? The Social Security scheme is far greater and affects more people than any other fraud in the history of the world. The $50 billion Madoff scheme pales by comparison. While Social Security isn't offering an especially high rate of return, the rate it is offering is certainly unsustainable. It's not okay that the system has not yet collapsed. It's still a fraud, and the likelihood of an eventual collapse is 100%.
For those who may not know, a Ponzi scheme is an investment offering an unusually high rate of return. The scheme involves paying said return to its existing participants using money received from new participants rather than paying out actual earned income, as there is little or no underlying income to be had. The scheme is always destined to collapse once there aren't enough new participants to cover the returns owed to the existing participants. (Visit Wikipedia for a more detailed explanation.)
My question is this: we know that Ponzi Schemes are highly illegal due to its fraudulent nature. Does our Social Security system fall into this category? If so, shouldn't the perpetrators of this fraud be prosecuted? The Social Security scheme is far greater and affects more people than any other fraud in the history of the world. The $50 billion Madoff scheme pales by comparison. While Social Security isn't offering an especially high rate of return, the rate it is offering is certainly unsustainable. It's not okay that the system has not yet collapsed. It's still a fraud, and the likelihood of an eventual collapse is 100%.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Who's in Charge?
I like this article a lot. This is a very appropriate way to begin my blog.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ .
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
They vote their own pay raises for themselves because they want it that way.
There are no unsolvable government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Sentinel Newspaper.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ .
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
They vote their own pay raises for themselves because they want it that way.
There are no unsolvable government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Sentinel Newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
