I don't feel sorry for General Motors

General Motors continues to lose money as a result of lackluster sales and production cost.

An axiom in management is: When any business forgets what business it is in, it is bound to go broke.I recall Lee Iacocca correcting one of his staff that stated that "Chrysler has to make great cars." Iacocca replied: "No, Chrysler has to sell great cars."General Motors make great cars, they just can't sell them. General Motors has been a giant in the automotive industry for 100 years, they should have had the foresight to put away money for times like today and equally important, they shouldn't have made cars that were unreliabe and frought with problems.General Motors has a repetution of promoting from within. At first glance, that is a noble thing to do, reward good employees for a job well done, however in the scheme of things, it is at the root of General Motors failure. They desperatly needed new ideas and new ideas aren't going to come from people that have been taught the old ideas, which unfortunately now prove to have been outdated and obsolete. New management may have had the courage to stand up to the unions instead of allowing the union bosses to dictate labor policy and more importantly extended labor benifits. Why not let these employees live like the rest of us, investing a $50 hourly expense per employee is unsustaniable except for few business's.If there is a solution for G M to regain its footing, government don't have the key. Past experience tells us that anything the government has ever been involved with has been a falure, if not a failure a waste of large amounts of resourses. General Motors future lies in China. General Motors should have filed bankruptcy and moved on, discharge the cumbersome and unsupportable union contracts and take their production to other places where they will be respected and appricated. The truth is, Americans can't make automobiles that will compete on the world market with the government and the union in charge.My opening line, when any business forgets what business it is in, it is bound to go broke, General Motors forgot, they tried to be all things to all of their people, instead of concentrating on getting the most for their labor dollar, they shouldn't have been in the business of providing lifelong assistance and halthcare for workers, who in many cases weren't worth minimum wage. If through the years, General Motors had concentrated on making and marketing quality cars, they wouldn't find themselves in the fix they are currently in.I really don't feel sorry for G M or their workers, they have arrived to where they have been going to for several decades. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Less Government, more Responsibility

The current economic crisis was not caused by bad people, rather it was caused by well-meaning people who enacted failed ideas into law.The failed idea in this case was that the government can best help families who are struggling financially by encouraging them to plunge themselves in debt.The entity which enacted the failed policy was Congress, and the entities that implemented congressional policy were HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.Fannie and Freddie didn't act out of a desire for profit or out of greed. They acted in compliance with HUD goals.HUD acted in compliance with the will of Congress. While Congress searches far and wide for people to blame, they are diverting attention from the true creators of the crisis - themselves.Some people say that financial markets require more governmental regulation. I would suggest they require less government participation. The financial debacle we are having now was caused by the decision to use debt as a tool of social policy.The problem is that the government entered the mortgage market, driving out free enterprise. HUD sponsored and Fannie-and-Freddie guaranteed loans are half of all mortgage loans, but they are defaulting at three times the rate of private sector loans.Government caused this crisis, not private businesses.The broader lesson to be learned here is that government control of private businesses doesn't work. Do we need more proof than what has happened in Germany and Korea?Within just a few years, West Germany and South Korea were powerhouses of freedom and prosperity.In the same period of time, East Germany and North Korea were examples of repression and poverty.Modern American politicians say "we're smarter, we're better, and we won't let that happen here." Government won't solve your problems

Obama, lies, broken promises and deceit.

The recent health care proposal passed by the Senate and delivered to the house for their stamp of approval is a masterful deception. Buried in page after page of political jargon are things that a majority of the politicians don’t want you to know about until it becomes law.

On January 31, 2008 in a Los Angeles debate with then Presidential Hopeful, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Obama said: "That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are."

C-Span has offered to broadcast the discussions scheduled to take place for the final health care form. The head of C-Span, CEO Brian Lamb wrote to the leaders of congress December 30 urging their co-operation in allowing C-Span to broadcast , “all important negotiations including any conference committee meetings so that the American people can see and understand something that will touch the life of every American”. So far his request has been ignored.

Some of the things that concern us all can be found scattered throughout the current bill but especially in section 3043, I suggest these are a concern by the Democrat politicians that pushed them through both houses of Congress, namely Senator Harry Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi. They appear to be hopeful the American public will not know what they are in for until it’s to late.

Here are a couple of examples:

On page #1000, section 3403 of the bill the Senate passed, we find the following:

“it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection. ”

In other words, once we got it we're stuck with it. That subsection gives the federal government exclusive power to do pretty much what ever they want, including change in benefits to older Americans, commonly known as “throwing Grand Ma under the bus“. And you can’t do a thing about it once it becomes law. The subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people. And they want the decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be untouchable for all time.

There was the a promise the entire bill would be published on the Internet and left up for 72 hours “for all to see“. Reid didn‘t want to publicize negotiations with Senator Landrieu of Louisiana or Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont in what is becoming known as the vote getting auction.

We, Americans, are expected to take their word at face value without seeing the finished product before it‘s forced on us, and if we don‘t like it, well that‘s tough, just learn to live with it .

Obama made another campaign promise that was supposed to allow voter input regarding legislation before he signed it. That promise among other promises for open government that Obama solemnly promised in order to gain the trust of the American Voter before election hasn't been the change this writer expected.

Hopefully, with pressure mounting Obama will see fit to ask Congress to allow C-SPAN cameras inside these closed door meetings that will let the Voters understand what they have sent to Washington on their behalf.

C-SPAN: Health Care Talks Should Be Televised

When Racial Profiling is Acceptable.

Lots has been said concerning racial profiling recently. I want to make the point that it does exist and many if not most times, it’s necessary and should be acceptable. Lets examine some of the reasons why a police person should racially profile a member of a minority. In a recent article authored by Katherine Kersten and appearing in The Star Tribune, a major newspaper located in the Minneapolis, St Paul area, the author points out that we shouldn’t accept racial profiling as a simple fact, she writes there is often good cause for it. 99% of suicide bombings are a product of Islam, that’s not disputed by most people. So, it makes sense that when looking for a potential bomber, first look at the Muslims. Using figures from Ms Kersten’s article, she points out why profiling by police should be accepted and list the reasons why. Borrowing from her work I’ll use her figures to make the point, I have no reason to think they aren’t credit worthy.
As the author points out, the incident with Professor Gates has brought racial profiling to the forefront, all the way to the White House where our President felt it was alright to malign the white policeman involved in the Gates incident. That Gates views the world as racially bigoted, the incident where he immediately said the white policeman were racially motivated should have been expected. But not from a person such as the President who is supposed to represent all of us.
The Professor is black. His remarks suggest white policeman should not question black people, he fails to take into racial reality. In his recent remarks about the incident, President Obama made two points, the police acted stupidly and that racial profiling was common place. Obama did no service to his race trying to justify the Professors remarks and attitude. His remarks were offensive and a disappointment to many people.
Racial profiling exist now as before and will in the future. Not by racist as such, but by police legitimately trying to do their job. It’s become part of police culture. Let’s look at some of the reasons.
Solving a crime with no other information, the police should first look at the people that are more prone to commit crimes. The sad truth is blacks commit far more crimes than any other group. In Boston of which Cambridge (where the professor is tenured) is a part, Blacks make up about 23% of the population, yet they accounted for over 50% of the crime. (2007) The author pointed out in New York, where blacks make up about 28% of the population, blacks commit 68% of the violent crime there. That breaks down to 78% of the robberies as well as 82% of the shootings according to the Manhattan Institute. In Minneapolis, blacks make up just 18% of the population there, yet 64% of those arrested in 2008 for major crimes were black. The disproportion doesn’t stop with these three examples. According to the Justice Department, from 1976 to 2005, 52% of homicides in the U S were done by a black person. They make up just 13 percent of the population.
These figures demonstrate the likelihood that when a major crime occurs, it isn’t unreasonable for a policeman to look first in the black community. That is where he is most likely to find the perpetrator. To suggest otherwise wouldn’t be a logically responsible approach. In the age group of 18 - 24, which is only 1% of the population, these males are some 5 times more likely to kill someone than say black males upward of 25 years. In 2005, blacks were 6 times more likely to be a homicide victim than a white person. From 1976 until 2005, according to the justice department 94% of black murder victims were killed by another black
There’s no question some police officers are racist, both black and white.
But the notion that racial profiling is wrong during the course of an investigation for a violent crime is nonsense and irresponsible.
IMO, after reading the article and doing some research on my own, racial profiling is acceptable many if not most times, yet we condemn police when they do their job and go first to the most likely source.
May I suggest Professor Gates come to grips with reality, the black community would be better served if his efforts were directed toward teaching young black males the idea of responsibility rather than promoting racial hatred through his bigoted views.
http://www.startribune.com/local/52219792.html?page=2&c=y

Who will call the shots for Obama?

The twice-revised financial bailout bill reecently passed by congress contained some new measures aimed at appeasing Republicans in the House, including keeping the alternative minimum tax from encroaching upon more Americans as inflation rises, and providing billions in relief for States hit by natural disasters in recent history. Some are concerned that this is the beginning of a path towards socialism, and that the bill does not do enough to help "Main Street" as opposed to "Wall Street." The recent economic crisis and looming recession has brought many to make comparisons to the Great Depression. This brings us to consider the leadership demonstrated at that time, especially by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. FDR helped bring the economy back in line (though it was the war economy of World War II that truly ended the Great Depression) and boosted the American people's confidence with a series of "fireside chats," informal radio broadcasts in which he directly addressed the people, explaining his positions and urging listeners to have faith in the New Deal. Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama discussed the first fireside chat when he spoke in La Crosse, Wisconsin in October. Roosevelt delivered his first fireside chat on March 12, 1933, only 8 days after he had been inaugurated as the 32nd President of the United States. The economy was a mess - the unemployment rate was at 25 percent, production had fallen, and many banks had closed their doors. Even the Federal Reserve was unable to open on March 5, as too much money had been withdrawn in the previous days. "I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States about banking--with the comparatively few who understand the mechanics of banking but more particularly with the overwhelming majority who use banks for the making of deposits and the drawing of checks," quoted the Galveston Daily News on March 13, 1933. "I want to tell you what has been done in the last few days, why it was done, and what the next steps are going to be. Remember that the essential accomplishment of the new legislation is that it makes it possible for banks more readily to convert their assets into cash than was the case before. It has been wonderful to me to catch the note of confidence from all over the country. I can never be sufficiently grateful to the people for the loyal support they have given me in their acceptance of the judgment that has dictated our course, even though all our processes may not have seemed clear to them."Obama has played well on Roosevelt’s words, it's amusing to the novice political observer like myself to have noted his different approach. At the time McCain just looked slow to grasp the current financial debacle and Obama gives the impression of being on top of the situation, though I would bet he hasn't the smallest idea what's going on. He has what has become increasingly apparent, very good political advisors. With his election, one can only wonder just who will be calling the next presidential shots..

Popularity no panacea

Why would perfectly intelligent people and institutions cast their fortunes with a person whose plan they don't fully understand and which seems too good to be true?
Bernard Madoff believers and critics have egregious examples elsewhere.
Dennis Miller, a comic, appearing at a forum in November, commented that "any man (Bush) who has the courage to ignore a 20 percent approval rating has my vote" - to thunderous applause!
Perhaps the Madoff mantra was too popular to critically evaluate - even unpatriotic.
Due diligence takes time and transparency.
Trust but verify.

Point of Clarification concerning Social Security

Point of clarification to your social security comparisons to ponzi scheme: It was the democrats who accused Bush of trying to privatize social security; not the reverse as you stated. You were right about your first comparison though. The rate of return for one's lifetime social security contributions is miserably low. This is why it is a rip-off when looked at from the standpoint of its original form, which was for everyone to "invest" into the system for their individual retirement funds. However, for several decades, social security has simply been an income transfer from one demographic group (wage earners) to another group (Social Security recipients). Unfortunately, the relative number of payers is getting too small to support the increasing number of recipients and eventually the system in its present form will break, just as a ponzi scheme will eventually break when it runs out of available payers at the lower level of the pyramid.