American Windows

I don't feel sorry for General Motors

2010-01-17T08:24:00.000-08:00

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ideas aren't going to come from people that have been taught the old ideas, which unfortunately now prove to have been outdated and obsolete.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

2010-01-16T20:25:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-12-14T06:39:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-08-27T11:11:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-01-04T18:35:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-04T18:24:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-03T20:48:00.000-08:00

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.

Social Security not a Ponzi Scheme

2009-01-03T16:54:00.000-08:00

Rush Limbaugh recently made the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, I don't take anything Rush says seriously - this recent ill advised claim is no exception.

The first thing that all Ponzi schemes have in common is the claim that investors will receive very high return on their investments. Social Security makes no such claim of market arbitrage.
The second thing that all Ponzi schemes have in common is that there is always the possibility that all investors in the scheme will demand their money at the same time as happened in the Bernard Madoff scheme. This cannot happen under the rules of Social Security.
The third thing that all Ponzi schemes have in common is that the major beneficiaries are concentrated to one, or a small group of people, at the top. This cannot happen under Social Security.
Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is a phony claim designed to drum up some phony outrage so that a few at the top can benefit from the privatization of the fund.
This type of fear mongering was used in the 2004 election season when President Bush was trying to scare people by making the false claim that John Kerry had a secret plan to privatize the fund.
The performance of the markets since the beginning of 2005 is the only proof we need that privatizing Social Security is a bad and reckless idea. Aren't we all glad that the Social Security fund was not used to trade toxic assets and stocks?
Those who claim that Americans will benefit from arbitrage opportunities by privatizing Social Security are the same people who will ask for a government bailout when their retirements are wiped out in the markets.
Social Security was set up during the Depression to prevent poverty in old age. Ponzi schemes depend upon the most gullible and less-informed to stay in operation.

Today in Time.

2008-10-03T09:17:00.000-07:00

October 3, 1995, O.J. Simpson found 'not guilty'

Former football player and actor O.J. Simpson was found 'not guilty' today for the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman. The two were found stabbed to death outside Brown's condominium on June 12, 1994. Evidence found at the crime scene pointed to Simpson, and he was arrested after a low-speed chase with police involving his white Ford Bronco.
Simpson's criminal trial began on January 24, 1995. More than eight months later, after less than four hours of jury deliberations, a 'not guilty' verdict was announced and the reaction nationwide was one of shock. "In a courtroom on the verge of exploding with emotion, a hush fell as Judge Lance Ito's clerk, Dierdre Robertson, read the two words: 'Not guilty.' Simpson smiled, mouthed the words 'Thank you' at the jury, then clasped his hands together," reported The Post Standard on October 4, 1995. "Juror Anise Aschenbach was reported as tearfully telling her daughter she believed Simpson was guilty but that police Detective Mark Fuhrman's tainted testimony could not be overcome. An estimated 150 million viewers are believed to have seen the verdict on television, making it one of the most watched events in American history. Although Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges, he was later found liable for the deaths in civil court in 1997 and was ordered to pay a fine.

O. J. Simpson Convicted of Kidnap and Armed Robbery, October 3, 2008

O. J. Simpson was found guilty Friday of robbing two sports-memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a Las Vegas hotel room.
The 61-year-old former football star could spend the rest of his life in prison. Sentencing was set for Dec. 5.
A weary and somber Simpson released a heavy sigh as the charges were read by the clerk in Clark County District Court. He was immediately taken into custody.

The Conviction was handed down 13 years to the day after he was acquitted of killing his former wife and her friend.

October 4th, 1918

The shell loading plant in Morgantown, New Jersey exploded, killing more than 100 people and injuring hundreds more. Over 800 including the dead, seriously injured and persons only slightly hurt by flying bits of steel. Of these 300 were hospital cases. "The explosion continued the next day,” reported The Iowa Daily Citizen on October 5, 1918
“At 7 a.m. there was a blast that shook houses and blew in windows with in a wide area,” continued the article, “Hoses near the scene of the explosion were swept from their foundations. Military authorities who took charge of the territory refused to make a statement.”
NOTE: The explosions continued for three days as ammunition continued to catch fire and explode. More than 300 buildings were destroyed, and the towns of South Amboy and Sayreville had to be rebuilt. The plant had been building artillery for the ongoing World War I – the explosion destroyed enough ammunition to last the western front of the war for six months. Unexploded ordinance is still being discovered in the area.

$700 billion!! Did I hear that right?

2008-10-01T07:21:00.001-07:00

Isn't the proposed Wall Street bail out the same ( I would argue worse) than the mismanaged FEMA funds. I would describe the situation/abuse in Louisiana after Katrina as follows: (1) the state of Louisiana (and, thus its taxpayers) failed to adequately prepare for an inevitable hurricane, (2) the hurricane came and destroyed New Orleans, etc..., (3) we (the federal taxpayer) bailed them out of the mess that their poor planning and frugality (an analog to greed) got them into, and (4) now they (the people responsible for the mess in the first place) are able to take unfair advantage of the bailout on our dime. I would argue that: (1) instead of making intelligent investment decisions, our financial institutions took advantage of under regulation and tried instead to make risky profits on securitized sub-prime loans (analog to Louisiana not building adequate levies) and (2) the inevitable devaluation of assets (analog to Katrina) occurred and wiped out a lot of the fake value created during the bubble. The stockholders (owners who chose to purchase an ownership stake in these risky companies) and the CEO's are losing a lot of money. The question now becomes: did we learn anything from the federal government's response to Katrina?" The Wall Street bailout plan called for the Fed to use $700 billion to buy "bad assets" from the very financial institutions that made the bad investments (and causes the bubble) to begin with. This plan rewards the very CEO's, investment bankers, and stockholders whose greed caused this mess to come about. Also, there a strong incentive for the fincancial institutions to cheat the system much like residents of Lousiana cheated the FEMA scheme (i.e., (1) American financial institutions may reorganize their corporate structure and reallocate their assets in such a way as to shield their valuable assets from liability while having the Fed (we the people) buy their bad assets or (2) foreign financial institutions may transfer "bad assets" into their U.S. subsidiaries for the Fed to purchase). The above argument is phrased in terms of the "justice" or "injustice" of the resulting wealth redistribution from the "innocent taxpayer" back to the "guilty stockholder/CEO/banker". However, the same logic also supports an argument that this bail out plan will stop the "invisible hand" of the "free market" from eliminating inefficient market participants (here, the "bad financial institutions/stockholders/CEO's" who made bad business decisions and would otherwise go bankrupt in a free market). Moreover, aside from justice or economic arguments, the plan simply won't work as advertised. The plan is infeasible and unlikely to succeed. My general understanding is that scheme involves giving the money ro the Fed to purchase "bad securities" from companies it determines to be essential to our financial wellbeing. This plan isn't feasible because it requires the Fed to have the prescience to pick "indispensable" financial institutions before their actual failure--to be able to identify the systemic effect of the failure before it occurs. The Fed has openly admitted that it doesn't know what will happen if certain institutions fail. For example, the Fed and commentators largely justified the AIG bailout by saying that no one knows what would happen if the world's largest insurer of credit default swaps was unable to make good on its policies. Also, in numerous hearings and interviews, representatives of the Fed have admitted that it is impossible to predict beforehand which failures could "irreparably damage" the economy. As such, the very premise of the plan (i.e., that the Fed knows how to distribute the bailout money in a way that will help the American economy "dollar for dollar" more than just giving that money back to taxpayers as a refund or lowering taxes by that amount) is irrational. According to Wikipedia, in 2007 there were 138 million taxpayers in the U.S (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Tax_distribution). If we divide that number into the cost of the bailout "plan," we get a cost of $5072.46 per taxpayer. Please note: (1) Just for irony, I wanted to see how big of a 0% down, principle only, ballooning, sub-prime mortgage every taxpayer could have paid for with his $5072.46. So, I multiplied the 5072.46 by 360 (30 years X 12 months) and got $1,826,085.60 total principle. The bailout is roughly equivalent to the first month's sub-prime mortgage payment home costing $1,826,085.60. That payment is from every American who filed taxes last year whether they make $2,000,000 or $20,000 a year, whether they bought a $1,826,085.60 that was beyond their means during the bubble or not. A payment made directly to Wall Street for getting us into this mess. I guess we can look at it as a big, collective "thank you." Also, if we (the 138 million taxpayers) got together to purchase these $1,826,085.60 dream homes and combined our $5072.46 up front instead of giving the money to Uncle Sam, do you know how many homes we could buy? Answer: 383,333 (three hundred thirty three thousand three hundred and thirty three) $1.82 million dollar dream homes. I have a sneaking suspicion that 383,333 is likely more homes than currently exist in Jacksonville Florida--and the average price of a home in Jacksonville is (optimistically) somewhere around $200,000. We could build the residential sections of more than 8 Jacksonvilles with this money. (2) Also, I know a lot of people complain about "welfare" being a waste because a small percentage of recipients game the system and get "something for nothing." It's ironic to me that, far from doing nothing, the Wall Street firms actually (1) caused the crisis and (2) made money on it, yet, we desperately want to throw money at them. I did some research. In terms of cash payouts, the average welfare recipient in the United States receives roughly $300 a month (or $3600 a year). At the end of 2005, about 4.4 million people in the United States received welfare benefits (see http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=184). The total value of welfare benefits in the United States is $15.8 billion a year (4.4. million X $3600) This figure, of course, excludes overhead/administrative costs--but so does the bailout plan. The result if you do the math: the undeserved "bailout (welfare)" we are contemplating giving to Wall Street is equivalent to giving benefits to all current welfare recipients in the United States for over 44 years. I also note, if the $700 billion were earning interest of 4% a year ($28 billion in interest a year), the interest alone would pay for welfare for infinity with about $12 billion to spare per year. (3) Finally, last election, "social security reform" was a "hot button" issue because back then (2004) we were focused on the fact that we don't have enough money to continue the program (i.e., Congress has spent all of our savings and can't pay us back the money it deducts from our paycheck every week.). I vaguely remember W. saying something about "privatizing social security." Well, that didn't happen. But, it is interesting to note that the cost of his Wall Street bailout, this proposed plan of government intervention into private markets (isn't this the exact opposite of "privatizing"?), will cost us the rough equivalent of $3.5 trillion 2080 dollars (accrued at approx. 4% interest). Ironically, in 2004, when Bush was calling for privatization of social security (rather than Kerry's proposed government bailout of the program), the estimated social security deficit in 2080 was $3.7 trillion (see http://www.factcheck.org/does_social_security_really_face_an_11.html). Translation: "The $700 billion Bush is currently planning to blindly throw at Wall Street on the proposed plan would have almost been enough in 2004 for him to essentially "bailout" social security once and for all in 2004.

Wa-Mu, a prime example of banking stupidity.

2008-09-29T08:39:00.000-07:00

Washington Mutual, the United State's largest saving and loan association, failed on Thursday and was seized by the U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision. Most of the bank's assets will be sold to JPMorgan Chase. This is the largest bank failure in U.S. history, and another in the recent history of failed financial institutions. The buyout by JPMorgan Chase makes Chase the second largest banking institution in the United States.
Washington Mutual began in 1889 as the Washington National Building Loan and Investment Association on September 25, 1889 - 119 years to the day before its dissolution. The bank was formed in response to the 1889 Seattle fire, which destroyed almost the entire financial district of downtown Seattle. Washington National Building Loan and Investment Association became Washington Savings and Loan Association in 1908 and then Washington Mutual Savings Bank by 1930. Washington Mutual made many acquisitions throughout its history, including the Vancouver Federal Savings Bank, Great Western Bank, Fleet Mortgage Corp, and Providian Financial Corporation.
WaMu, as the bank was informally known as, was a savings and loan association. This type of financial institution focuses on accepting savings deposits and making mortgage loans - a specialty which makes it especially susceptible to the current subprime mortgage crisis. The bank held $307 billion in assets but only $188 billion in deposits, leaving it open to massive problems. On Friday, following the news of its collapse, Washington Mutual stocks dropped 90 percent to only $0.16 a share.

What is sorely needed is enforcable regulations that will protect depositors and institutions alike, I doubt this is the end of bank failures, fortunately, the taxpayer through the FDIC didn't have to absorb the entire loss. I'm not normaly in favor of more regulations but Pnozi schemes have to be reined in. If history is no teacher, we are bound to fail.

Perhaps it's time to think Third Party.

2008-09-29T05:31:00.000-07:00

Again, our tax dollars are paying for corporate bailouts of huge corporations due to financial mismanagement.
Living high on the financial hog through the good times, the same people profited in the billions over the past decade: Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG.
They were willing to take on risk that have prudent bankers have proven to be too much risk, and now the American people are left paying the bill for their failures. Is this the American dream?
My home has lost at least 10 percent of its value in the last two years. Many people have lost much more.
We all take a risk when buying a house, but I took the "responsible" path and put 20 percent down with a fixed-rate mortgage.
My home equity, my "nest egg," is now worth less, and I accept that fact. But, I am angry that the government is spending my hard-earned tax dollars to reward those who made risky decisions with subprime mortgages.
The government's job is not to reward those who take risks and lose. And it's not my job to reward them either. The free-market economy works best with limited government involvement.
Companies that made bad bets should fail. Smarter, better firms will replace them and grow.
People losing their homes because of adjustable-rate mortgages will get fixed-rate loans the next time and buy homes that they can afford.
The economy will go on and survive, and we can all learn a lesson. I do feel bad that this is happening, but it is a necessary adjustment.
And, I don't feel obligated to pay a penny more for the financial mistakes of others.
Republican and Democratic leaders alike take too much corporate money.
They represent the corporation, not the people. Both political parties are equally guilty of failing the American economy and the American people.

The two political parties have let us down time and time again and championed the special interest, this time the banks that have sent them untold millions of dollars to help attain their office. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know sending the same crowd back to washington time and time again hasn't produced results. It's time to seriously think about a third party. Enough is enough.

About the Vice President

2008-09-10T18:30:00.001-07:00

Heart complications caused many to beleive that Vice President Dick Cheney would die in office, joining the legacy of seven other vice presidents. No one could have guessed he would join history as the second vice president to shoot someone in office. "Not since Aaron Burr, has a vice president shot someone," an NBC newscast recently declared and it's true. Aaron Burr, who served as vice president for Thomas Jefferson, purposefully shot his rival, Alexander Hamilton in a duel over political posturing and honor. However, the event is hardly comparable to Cheney's hunting accident. Yet, the results may end up the same. The duel and Burr's subsequent trial turned him into one of the most spurned vice president's in history. Similarly, if Cheney's accident turns fatal he may be subject to a grand jury investigation.
Yet, Cheney's accident is just another colorful event in the history of the vice presidency. Elbridge Gerry, the vice president under James Madison, loaned his name to the term "Gerrymandering," which refers to redistricting areas in order to increase political strength. Calvin Coolidge's vice president, Charles Dawes, won a Nobel Prize and in 1951 his composition "Melody in A Major" became a pop song later recorded by Van Morrison and Elton John. On the other hand, musical Vice President Harry S. Truman caused a scandal when he was pictured playing a piano with Lauren Bacall posing on top. His wife, Bess, was reportedly upset over the picture and Bacall still claims to receive letters about the incident.
Additionally, the history of the vice presidency is as complicated and interesting as the men who have filled it. The role seems to have been an afterthought in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. The vice president was to be the presidential understudy in case of death, illness or if the president was found guilty of treason, bribery and "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Originally, the founding fathers created a system where the person receiving the majority of the electoral votes became president and the person receiving the second-most became vice president. In addition, they gave the vice president two jobs; to serve as the President of the Senate and in the event of a tie, to cast the deciding vote.
However, the system for electing a vice president broke down in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes. The standoff was finally decided by the House of Representatives. These events lead to the Amendment XII in 1804, which specified different electoral ballots for the president and vice president. The amendment, did much to undercut the prestige of the vice president because the vice president was no longer the second largest vote getter.
The lack of prestige and responsibility has made the role of vice president one of the most mocked jobs in history, often by the men who filled it. Thomas R. Marshall, the 28th vice president, told a story about the job, stating, "Once there were two brothers. One went away to sea; the other was elected Vice President of the United States. And nothing was heard of either of them again." After being asked to be vice president on Zachary Taylor's ticket in 1848, Daniel Webster is reported to have said, "I do not intend to be buried until I am dead."
Though the vice president stands only a heart beat away from the presidency, Webster's statement encompasses much of the sentiment surrounding the job. As a result of this perception, many vice presidents have given the job the cold-shoulder. During the Civil War, vice president Hannibal Hamlin spent most of his time at home in Maine. Henry Wilson, Grant's vice president used his time in office to write a three volume history of slavery. In fact, John C. Calhoun resigned his seat in 1832 to fill a vacancy in the Senate. He thought he would have more influence and power as a senator than as the vice president. And at the time, he may have been correct. Vice President Spiro Agnew also resigned but not because he wanted to be a senator, rather because he pleaded no contest to charges of tax evasion and receiving bribes.
In a few circumstances the vice president has moved from obscurity and into the highest position in the land. John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford, were the fated nine who have moved from the Vice President's Office to the Oval Office.