Negative Campaigning

Powell criticized McCain for his negative campaigning. I too have criticized McCain for his negative campaigning. But McCain, Palin and Joe the Plumber have had to endure taunts from the other side as well, such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piFI_194GXU&eurl=http://kolobiv.blogspot.com/2008/10/eyes-have-it.html

If you have more, let me know.

Tonight's debate and Prop 8

I must say that I have been very disappointed with the campaign that McCain and Palin have run. It has been extremely negative. It is not working. Please, please, please, please, please do not tell me why I should not vote for Obama. Tell me why I should vote for McCain.

The task in tonight's debate is to pull a rabbit out of the hat. He needs to give the voters a reason to vote for McCain. Give the voters a real indication that there will be a change in direction.

I have found out that while Obama is the #1 recipient of Fannie Mae money, Bob Bennett is #3. Are you sure that you still want to run for re-election one more time, Mr Bennett?

I have avoided talking about Prop 8 in California until now. Why is it an issue in Utah? Because the California Gay Marriage Law does not have a residency requirement. A gay couple in Utah can go to California and get married, move home and sue the State of Utah to recognize the marriage. If the California law is not overturned, Gay Marriage will be leagal in all 50 states in four years.

Proponents of Gay Marriage have argued that marriage laws are discriminatory. The fact that heteros can get married and homos can not creates a 2nd class citizen. I agree, but it is not the laws of the country that create this imbalance. It is the laws of nature.

Adam and Eve get married. And if Eve is younger than 35, there is a 90% chance that Eve will conceive a child that will be nearly half Adam and half Eve without the help of a medical professional. Adam and Steve get married and there is a 0% chance that Adam and Steve can make a baby that is part Adam and part Steve. In fact, Adam and Steve have to hire a surrogate mama to carry a baby for them. Even with the help of medical science, it can not be done. Eve and Sarah get married and there is also a 0% chance that they can make a baby that is part Sarah and part Eve. Even with the help of medical science it can not be done.

If marriage is man's invention, what was the intent from the beginning. It certainly was not love. It was to control bloodlines. If marriage was man's invention, the purpose was to make certain we know the identity of the baby's daddy. If marriage was man's invention, it was never about who you love. Since adultery is not prosecuted as a crime in this country, the laws of the land do not restrict who you love. You certainly have the freedom to love who you want to love regardless of who you are married to.

If a man and a woman are married and do not "love" anyone outside of this partnership, and then if they concieve naturally, we know who the genetic parents of the children are. We know that the King is the father of the prince. There is not doubt about this. The idea that marriage is for love is a relatively new idea.

But in our society today, there are perks to being married. You can file taxes differently. You can bank and borrow money jointly. You can get health insurance together. The list goes on and on. So if you love someone of the same gender, how can you get these perks without marriage?

But remember, we can call such a relationship marriage if you go to court and force us to do so. But there are perks of marriage that no court in the world can give you. Adam and Steve can not sue the court of nature to give them a baby that is genetically part Adam and part Steve. Even our best and most brilliant medical experts can not do this. We do not have the ability to "correct" this inequality. I do not know if we ever will.

Be Carefull Who You Blame.

In my lifetime, four presidents have been elected because of the anger of the electorate. In each case, the president of the opposite part of the incumbent won office. Most people, no matter their political persuasion will probably state that one was great, one was adequate and two were marginal. The question is, who? Here are the four:

Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Clinton

As I said, who you think was great, who was adequate and who was marginal are probably due to your political world view. So, if we take our anger to the polls and elect Barack Obama, there is a 50% chance he will be marginal, a 25% chance he will be adequate and a 25% chance he will be great based upon the four who were elected in my lifetime. In my opinion, Reagan was great, Clinton was adequate, Carter and Nixon were marginal. BTW...here are the other presidents elected under such circumstances...

Jefferson
Jackson
William Henry Harrison
Buchanan
Lincoln
Grant
Garfield
Benjamin Harrison
Cleveland (2nd Term)
Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Clinton

How many on that list were great? In my option, 5--Reagan, FD Roosevelt, Wilson, Lincoln and Jefferson. Adequate? 2--Clinton and Jackson. Marginal 6--Carter, Nixon, Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison Grant and Buchanan. Inconclusive 2--Garfield and William Henry Harrison. Both died early in office.

I also must say that I do not know about Eisenhower. Truman was unpopular and Eisenhower was of the opposite party. I rate Eisenhower as adequate. History, however, has vindicated Truman.

So in conclusion, do you expect real change from Obama? History is not on your side.

VP debate over

The major networds are declaring Biden the winner in tonight's debate. Fox News Channel declared a draw. If you were looking for a Palin car crash, you did not get one tonight.

One point to think about. Biden spoke of the middle class. Palin is the middle class.

Root cause of the current crisis

Here is a five-why analysis of the root cause of the current economic crisis.

1. Why does congress need to bail-out the American banking system?
-Because there are so many failed mortgages and foreclosed upon homes.

2. Why are there so many foreclosed upon homes?
-Because too many lenders were giving mortgages to people who would not qualify for traditional mortgages.

3. Why do people not qualify for traditional mortgages?
a--Because they have poor credit.
b--Because they can not verify that they have enough income.
c--Because they really can't afford those homes.

4a--Why do people have poor credit?
Because they have mis-managed their credit

5a--Why have people mis-managed their credit?
Because other types of credit are too easy to get.

4b--Why can not people verify that they have enough income?
Because they are self-employed

4c--why are we helping people get into houses that they really can't afford?
Because there are no homes in the area that they can afford?

5c--Why do we allow the housing market to become so expensive that people can not afford homes?
Because real estate agents and mortgage originators make their money and move on.

How do we fix this problem?

1. Make it harder for people to get credit cards, store accounts and other types of credit we easily get into trouble with when we are young and trying to establish ourselves. This includes Student Loans and car loans. We have to make college more affordable and we have to put an end to easy credit. We need to end the 72-month car loan. If you can not pay off a car by the time the odometer will reach 75000 miles, then you can not afford it. We need to be realistic about our credit demands.

2. We have to find a better way to support small business owners and people who are self-employed so that they are better prepared for the realities of small business.

3. We have to find a way to control the market so that housing prices are realistic for the majority of home buyers.

We have to shift our paradigms about credit and money and expectations. If it takes another depression, then we failed to learn our lesson from the last one.

One final thought. People are angry at the Bush administration and McCain is going to pay the price for it. He is too close to Bush simply because he is a Republican and he works in Washington. The Republican ticket should have been Romney/Palin, but too many evangelicals can not vote for a Mormon. Too bad your religious bigotry has ruined two bright political careers and set your cause back 30 years. Too bad Obama isn't the answer either.

The House Votes no

An attempt to bail out the mortgage industry has failed again. It was unpopular. To many Americans, it looked like an attempt to bail out millionaires. But it was an attempt to avert potentially the worst economic crisis since the great depression. That crisis now looks inevitable.

Here is what we are now in for. It is now likely that so many of us will soon be out of work as employment is always the last indicator. Companies usually dismiss workers as a last resort. Those of us that still have jobs in six month will be the lucky ones. I foresee double-digit unemployment in the near future. This means that one person out of every 10 or more will loose their job because of this failed bail-out package. Probably in January or February, at the worst possible time, when it is cold and there people can not pay their heating bills will people really get angry. By then, it will take a trillion to fix things.

It is too bad that people do not see how Wall Street impacts Main Street. It is better to take care of problems when they are small then to let them get too big. But it is too late now.

Discrimination is Still Alive and Well in this Election

Mad TV and Saturday Night Live.

I have enjoyed many of the skits on these two programs over the years. Even the political ones. But this year, Mad TV is over the top this year with their portrayal of John McCain. McCain is portrayed by Bobby Lee, a very talented comic. Last week, there was a portrayal of McCain vs Obama on a spoof of dancing with the stars. Obama was portrayed as hip--he was break dancing. McCain was portrayed as a music-box robot.

This is proof that one group that it is still OK to discriminate against is older citizens. There are reasons to vote for Barak Obama. One of them is not because he is younger. It amazes me that this portrayal comes from Mad TV on fox. Rupert Murdock is one of the most powerful Octogenerians in the world. Perhaps this is proof that you can sometimes bite the hand that feeds you and get away with it.

Turning 40 this year has made me come to the realization that eventually we will all get older. The best thing about being older is that you have had the time to make mistakes and learn from them.

Saturday Night Live's portrayal of Sarah Palin is not over the top. But it will get old. Palin is smarter than a lot of people give her credit for. I think that Palin's candidacy for VP is proving that there is the right kind of feminist and the wrong kind of feminist. Palin is not the right kind of feminist.

The deal falls apart

The bail-out deal has fallen apart. And it was the Republicans that did it. The republicans have nothing more to loose with the economy right now.

When a democrat was last in the White House--the economy was doing well and there was a budget surplus. And it has all gone to pot with Republicans in charge.

People who can put two and two together will probably vote for Obama.

But there is plenty of blame to go around. There is an economic term called the velocity of money. It is not like velocity in physics. It is based on the savings rate. I spend $1. The person who I give my dollar to is going to save a certain amount and spend the rest. The velocity of money is 1 minus the savings rate. If there are no taxes, and the savings rate is one percent then the dollar that I spend will last until it moves between about 450 people before the last penny is put in the bank.

But what if the savings rate is negative. Right now the savings rate in the United States is negative 3 percent. That means when I spend 1 dollar, the store keeper will borrow 3 cents and spend 1.03. If you do this, it appears that that 1 dollar will never wear out. But that 3 cents has a cost, and it is interest. So that store keeper is not adding three cents to the economy for every dollar that I spend, but it is three cents minus interest. Over the years, the interest will catch up. That is where the economy will crash. That is where we are now. That is the danger of a negative savings rate.

Would You Like Teeth with that?

I have heard the rumor, and I hope that it is a rumor, that some banks will not sign up for the bail-out program if they are forced to get rid of golden parachutes.

THIS MAKES ME ANGRY!

This bail-out law had better have some teeth to it. Meaning...we are not giving you a choice. We will buy your bad debt, you will turn over your bad loans to the government and you will get rid of your golden parachutes. We will give you no choice. We will cancel your passport and prosecute you if you refuse.

Why do certain people think that they need to be rewarded for letting their company go down the toilet. The employees of these firms who get laid off are going to struggle until they can get another job. The CEOs of these companies need to suffer the same fate that their employees will. Unemployment ruins your psyche and your credit. It takes years to recover.

If you leave your company a better place than you find it. If your employees are better off because you were there. If your employees feel that they were treated fairly by you. If your customers are happier. If you investors have profited. If your company has secured its niche for the long-term. If all this happens, then we will make you rich. If all of this happens no one will care about the millions you have sent to your bank account in Bern. Otherwise, no and hell no! We deserve better.

The Golden Parachute Tax.

The current economic crisis is not a partisan issue, and this is not the time for partisan bickering. What we need to understand is that 700 Billion dollars is a lot of money. Personally, I want to hang the people responsible, but I have a better idea. I am normally not for new taxes, but someone needs to pay this bill. The median household earns 44,380 annually. The median household size that earns the median household income is 2.57. This translates to roughly 277 hours worked for every American. This is nearly 7 weeks--that is how long all of us are going to have to work to make this much money.

I only support the bail out if it is going to save jobs and livelihoods. I personally have my doubts about that. I really think that this will exacerbate the problem. In other words, credit will be more difficult to get and housing prices will plummet even further and at a faster rate. The resulting recession may be shorter, but it will be much worse. I would be like getting a flu shot that gives you all the severity of a two week virus in 24 hours. Do we really want this? I don't.

I have been laid off three times in my career. The first time, I got one months severance, the second and third time, I got two months severance. I had a coal parachute that was full of holes. This is what grunts at the bottom of the food chain get when they are involuntarily separated from a company. Only senior executive get the big bucks.

My idea to fix this is bail those guys out, but introduce a new tax. A tax on severance. The "Golden Parachute" tax. Severance packages are tax free up to 1 year salary, or $ 250,000, whichever is lower. Anything beyond that is taxed at 99%. No shelters, no loopholes. This does not cover retirement if you take a pension or an annuity. It does cover a lump sum retirement package. It does cover "voluntary" separation. The government will have the right to investigate any unusual retirements--like someone retiring under the age of 60, or retires and then becomes the CEO of another company, etc. In other words, if you run a company into the ground, you will pay. The government will collect it from you.