To Bailout or Not to Bailout, That is the Recession.

My fellow Americans...What the hell is going on? We have a bailout, we don't have a bailout, democrats approve, republicans disapprove, cats living together with dogs...well, as the kids like to text...WTF? I wanted to write about this after this whole thing went kaboom on Monday, and Wall Street went down like a John Denver Cessna flight, but I just couldn't wrap my head around the whole situation. So, I took some time, did some research and am now prepared to give the Elephant-vs-Jackass assessment of the situation. Let me preface this however by admitting that I have not read all 100 plus pages of the bailout proposal - outside of Harry Potter books and steamy romance novels, I simply refuse to read anything over 20 pages if I'm not getting paid.

Let me start by saying that President Bush needs to quit it with all this fire and brimstone, gloom and doom, stuff. The sky is not falling, pigs have yet learned to fly, and I'm pretty sure hell doesn't need a Zamboni. Panic and exaggeration only compact the problem at hand, and unfortunately, many of us, including our congressmen and women, have fallen for this "the world's going to explode" ideology. Yes, we have a hefty sized problem on a wet paper plate, but lets keep things in perspective. We absolutely need to pass some kind of rescue plan, but it needs to be done intelligently. Rushing to a solution just to have one, doesn't mean it's a good one. This decision will impact our nation for many years to come, so it makes sense that if we need a couple days do get it right, rather than just get it done, so be it. It can't be delayed for months and months, as the credit markets are getting pretty chilly, but I think most Americans are willing to hold off for a week on getting that loan for a KIA, if it means they won't be raped and pillaged by the government for the next 5 years.

Enjoy this, because it doesn't happen often - I actually applaud the Republicans on this for not passing the bailout deal as it stood. Even if there were slimy political motives behind it, it was the right conclusion...that bill was crap on a stick. Of course credit goes to those Democrats as well who went against their party to fight for something better for Joe Farmer and Suzy Salesclerk. I especially want to give credit to Dennis Kucinich, who opposed the bill. If there is a single person in Washington that does more to fight for the average American, and bring some accountability and integrity to the Hill, I certainly haven't identified them. Mr. Kucinich gave one of the most rational, non-political assessments of the deal that I have heard, so Dennis, even if you believe in UFO's and can hide entire cities in your coat pockets, you're ok in my book.

On the reverse side of this, there are many people that should be stoned for this debacle. First of all, will somebody please tell Nancy Pelosi when it is and when it is not a good time to infuse politics in to the crucial decision making that needs to be done on behalf of the entire country. If you missed Pelosi's speech, let me paraphrase: "Before we vote, I want to point out that we are in this mess because of all of you right wing jerkoffs and your shit for brains ideology. Now vote with me to pass this bill." Thankfully Ms. Pelosi's idiocy was matched by a large portion of Republican representatives who had their feelings hurt by the Speaker's tender and thoughtful speech. And once again, the best interests of you and me and Bobby McGee, were thrown out that big metaphorical window so our representatives could play Red guy Vs. Blue guy.

Looking for more idiots to get pissed off at? I offer up the ancient soul of one Senator John McCain. Thank God he called off his campaign to save the world by pushing through this important bailout - and then called his campaign back on because he was confident he had saved the day and got his fellow Republicans on board with the bill - and then blamed Barack Obama for doing nothing as the bill failed to pass - trying to hide the point that his help...well, it didn't help. If this is the kind of cool, rational thinking and leadership we can expect from a McCain presidency, we might as well just have Sarah Palin running the country, so at least we can have something to laugh at.

So, now for the bailout and what I think is wrong with it. This Bailout has several faults. To begin with, it doesn't really address the mortgage crisis. You can pump money back into these huge banks and investment firms forever, but until we find ways to keep people in their homes, we're not going to get rid of this problem. There are tons of ideas from economists on how to do this, and I'll try to get to those in the next few days. Also, from what I can tell, the bill will limit annual salaries for CEO's of these companies to $500,000 - but I haven't yet seen anything that limits their multi-million bonuses...hopefully I just missed that part in my skim through. I think both Senators Obama and McCain are correct in requesting the FDIC to raise their insured level from $100,000 to $250,000. Frankly this rate should have been adjusted long ago because of this crazy little thing called inflation. Now might be a good time to insure the American people that a larger portion of their funds are safe, don't you think? But basically their is one fundamental problem that kind of umbrellas the whole issue...

Bailout 2.0 simply continues the same same trickle down economics that helped push as in to this losing affair. Let's buy up all these toxic investments and give the money to these companies that screwed over the country on their greed, and expect that they will do better, consumers will gain confidence, money will flow freely from the well, and trickle down onto the peons of the country(yes, that pun was intentional). Really? That's like a parent saying, "Billy, you really have to stop punching your little brother in the face, he doesn't like it, but you know what, why don't you go ahead and punch him in the face again, and maybe he'll bleed less this time...he needs to toughen up." We have to have Mom and Dad sticking up for the little brother in this situation. We can't just give the same few powerful, wealthy people more money after they mess up, and expect them to make better decisions with it the second time around. This plan gives no significant reason for this to not happen again in the future, and that is the main problem.

The Lemonade Stand Version of the Bailout
I like to think of this plan in terms of a lemonade stand. Picture this. A couple of kids have these lemonade stands set up in their neighborhood and are doing really well for themselves. Their raking in a couple bucks a day with their high quality lemonade from fresh squeezed lemons. They then find an opportunity to buy a crappy lemonade mixture from their buddy down the street for less, and still sell it off for more. The kids start pulling in even more money. Then they find out another kid in the neighborhood is simply pissing in cups and calling it lemonade. They decide to buy up his piss in a cup, and sell that off too. Now, the kids are taking in more money then they know what to do with. These kids just start filling cup after cup with piss lemonade, because hey, nobody's watching them. Then - a problem hits. The first customers start to realize that they aren't getting fresh squeezed lemonade, and realize they just purchased shitty lemonade mixture. Then it gets even worse when other people realize that they just bought and drank piss, for the price of fresh squeezed lemonade. And these kids now have all the money they earned tied up in all this shitty lemonade mixture and piss - but now nobody wants any of their toxic lemonade, and they are forced to shut down. But then, the parents decide they need to step in, and they say, "This is no good. This neighborhood needs its lemonade stands. You know what kids, we've got a plan. We're going to buy up all of your shitty lemonade and piss with this money we collected from every person in the neighborhood. You can take that money and start your lemonade stand back up, and we'll trust that you'll go back to selling fresh-squeezed lemonade, rather than urine in a cup. People will start buying lemonade again, and everything will be great. And the best part is, we'll hold on to your old shitty lemonade and piss for a while, and then we'll try to sell it off for a profit, and pay everyone in the neighborhood back. Then we can all live happily ever after."

I guess to sum things up in a tidy little package, there is more that is wrong with this bailout than is right. While I despise the fact that politics is preventing progress in Washington, I'm glad they're at least going to try and make some improvements. Unfortunately, I can't help but feel that we are setting ourselves up to purchase a 700 billion dollar band-aid. And once again, Wall Street will walk off jovially into the sunset with pockets full of money, and you'll be stuck helping the government buy their piss.

A Fashionably Late or Functionably Lazy Roundup of the First Debate

After watching the 1st presidential debate on Friday evening, and then watching the pundits on both sides eat the truth, work it through their systems and regurgitate it as an all new dish, I thought I'd wait for the weekend and wine to wear off before I jumped into the topic. In my opinion, there was no knockout punch, but I would have to say Obama came out a little less bloodied. Here's what I took away from the whole thing:

1. What was with John McCain's insistence on making reference after reference that reminds us how old he is. Come on John, get your head in the game. Your not helping your cause by pointing out that you've been soft-shoeing in the senate since Jesus was a boy, or that your best friends are mostly dinosaurs and cavemen, or that you have the fire needed to change Washington because you were around when fire was discovered. We get it pops, you've been around the block in your Flintstones car a few times...stop feeding the liberals with ammunition.

2. John McCain does not like losing. As in the past, he was very persistent in pointing out that victory is within site in Iraq, and we are winning this and that, and that Obama doesn't want to give troops the resources they need to win, etc. I'm sorry if this seems off base, especially since the closest I've come to war is a couple all-nighter games of Risk - but who really wins in this kind of war? We're spending 10 billion a month in Iraq, so we're losing money, not winning it. Last I checked, we don't seem to have made any new friends in the world by waging this war, so we're not winning friends or respect. Those 4,000 dead US soldiers certainly didn't win. Nor did the countless dead Iraqis, which apparently aren't even worth reporting about. So who won? It doesn't sound to me like anyone has or will win anything out of this whole Goddamn ordeal. Maybe a few oil companies won, but the rest of us are leaving the fair with empty wallets, sadness, and no giant plush Osama Bin Laden. John McCain can take his winning attitude and shove it up his winning ass, and then tell us all how great victory feels.

3. Is it just me or was everyone wearing an absurd amount of make-up? It was like a clown party up on that stage. I was half expecting Jim Lehrer to give each candidate a few tosses at the Bozo Buckets. Will someone please inform the make-up artists of the world that we now have this thing called HD-TV?

4. I think John McCain has Derek Zoolander syndrome and can turn left, because he didn't look at Obama once. Not that Obama was much better, but he at least managed to rotate his torso a few degrees from time to time and look at his opponent.

5. Both of the senators appeared to be knowledgeable on the issues, with no significant advantage for either on any single topic. They both said what their bases wanted to hear and did so in an intelligent manner. I think each had opportunities to get a solid hit in on their opponent, but both settled for simple sparring. Obama could have put a solid upper-cut to the jaw of McCain's "I'm all for veterans" argument with bringing up his 20% approval rating by the Disabled Veterans of America. But no, he didn't take the shot, because his answers were a little too prepared.

I was overall rather bored by the whole affair. Maybe it's because I follow this stuff every day, or maybe it's because I'm already too excited about the VP battle royale coming this Thursday. Maybe I was just disappointed that McCain showed up and I couldn't use the same 'McChicken' joke that every blogger and journalist in the world was dying to use. Oh well, I guess I can always turn my attention to more exciting activities, like like watching the stock market bungee jump with a piece of yarn around its ankle. Yikes!

Colbert and Stewart drop their characters for an EW interview

Hey everyone. I just wanted to post this link to a preety interesting little interview that Entertainment Weekly did with Comedy Central heroes Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. Both step out of their showman characters for a few minutes and just talk as regular guys. It's interesting to see these two comedians take on politics when they aren't laying the satire on in abundance. Here's the link, or you can also find it on your local magazine rack and get the privledge of paying for it.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20228603,00.html

Bailout! Bailout! The USS Wall Street is sinking!

I was pretty much trying to avoid this topic, as I admittedly am not a financial genius - reference my empty wallet for evidence. However, this is the big story out there, and I've discovered that most people are just as, if not more confused by this whole thing than I am. Most of us can go to Wikipedia and look up what a hedge fund is, and after reading the definition, still ask, "ok, but what is a hedge fund?". Thankfully, for both of us, I'll try to steer clear of the quagmire of financial terms.

So, what we're potentially looking at is a $700 billion dollar bailout for these 'investment banks' and insurance agencies, and other corporate fat cats that pretty much are getting exactly what they were asking for. Following years of deregulation from our federal government, we set these financial gurus free to monitor themselves. This experiment is similar to leaving your teenager home alone for a couple weeks with a house full of booze, and seeing what happens. In both cases, it was fairly predictable that it wasn't going to end well...and now after years of being left alone, we've found that wall street has puked all over the carpet and burned down the garage. And who gets left to clean up the mess? If you answered, "me" stand up, because you're the big winner!

After months of saying that there wasn't a problem, Bush and friends finally had to step out into the cold, unloving light of day and admit, "ok, I guess we've got ourselves a little problem". And his solution to saving our economy was brilliant. Let's give Secretary of the Treasury, and former Goldman Sachs executive, Henry Paulson a $700 billion dollar bailout slush-fund of tax-payer money, not monitor what he's doing, and hope everything turns out all roses, and butterflies and happy horse shit like that. Brilliant! So the solution to the problem caused by lack of regulation and monitoring can be solved by further lack of regulation and monitoring , and 4% of our GDP...that makes so much sense...why didn't I think of that?

This is such a great proposal, I don't even know where to start. I like paying for other people's greed. I sleep better at night knowing that the CEO of Morgan Stanly got his 30 million dollar bonus this year. And I really take comfort in knowing that under the Bush/Paulson proposal, those same CEO's who made tens of millions of dollars a year for running their companies into the ground will still be getting paid millions, while you and I shop at the 99 Cent Store and watch Henry Paulson play, "Who wants this worthless stock?".

While both John McCain and Barak Obama have offered outlines for the changes they think need to be made to make Bush's proposal more fair for 'main street', neither was brought up the bailout concept of, "Bail yourself out!" And the crazy thing about all of this is that there is already a good, and fair plan out there to do this. All it takes is putting back in place a tiny little tax, that we actually used for decades until it was cut in 1966. Don't know what this is? Well, put on your detective hat Scooby-Doo, we're going to investigate.

The tax I'm referring to is a Stock Transfer Tax, which basically puts a very small tax on every purchase or sale of a share of stock. This same type of tax previously existed as part of the Revenue Act of 1932, and stayed in place up until 1966 when it was dismantled in a government effort to streamline the tax system. In its previous life, this tax proved to have two great strengths: 1) It's ability to generate funds. And 2) The manner in which it curbed dangerous speculation in the market place.

Ok, great, but what does this have to due with the $700 billion dollar bailout? We're getting there, so stop being impatient or I'll send you to time-out. Alright, back to business.

This concept was actually brought up by respected economist (who looks strangely like my father-in-law) Dean Baker, way back on March 15, 2008. In an article entitled, A Stock Transfer Tax: The Right Medicine for Wall Street, Dean talks about reinstating the stock transfer tax as a way to generate funds for a universal Health Care system, better education, or a movement towards a more Green economy.

In the article, Baker notes the .25% stock transfer tax that is currently in place in the United Kingdom and the London Stock Exchange. Here's where this gets interesting.

If this same tax was placed on all the sales and purchases of shares of stock on Wall Street, the tax would generate an estimated $150 - 200 billion dollars annually. That means that, rather than dig into the pockets of Joe Taxpayer, the government can bailout Wall Street with their own money, and do so within 4 or 5 years. It also would likely pull in the reigns on the absurd speculative money shuffling that's been plaguing Wall Street for years. You have to be a little more careful going all in on the longshot if it will cost you millions in tax, win or lose. Wall Street would probably be more inclined to pick Pretty Little Pony to place and settle for a lesser but more reliable profit.

The tax would mean little to your average investor, and would draw most of it's rewards from the very companies and agencies that got us into this mess. Go ahead and do the Math. Let's say you, as an individual have $20,000 in stocks...now lets say that you that you buy or sell a full $20,000 in shares each month, because you know, you're a mover and a shaker...now lets pull out our calculator. So, even if you had this nice portfolio and handled it as recklessly as I just did...your cost for buying and selling of $240,000 in stocks over the course of the year would only cost you $600 in tax. Since most of us investors aren't going this crazy with our 401K's and other financial goodies, it's more likely that the average middle class investor would be paying only a couple bucks annually to ride the Wall Street crazy train. Compare that to the approximately $6000 per taxpayer price tag Bush and Paulson's plan would saddle us with.

Of course Henry Paulson, when presented with this idea, was not a big fan. My theory is that it has something to do with the fact that Paulson owns 4.58 million shares of stock in now 'former' investment bank, Goldman Sachs. This means his stocks in Goldman Sachs alone are worth about $700 million. I think you can do the math for yourself on this one. $700,000,000 multiplied by .25% - carry the two - and yes sir, we have a conflict of interest on our hands.

Obviously this is just the basics of the situation, but don't you think some of our warriors up on the hill might want to take a little closer look at Dean Baker's proposal? Let's bring back that little thing known as a system of checks and balances along with a plan to make those most responsible for this mess to be the most accountable. Privatized profits, and socialized losses hardly seems like a fair deal, does it? But then again, I'm just a guy with an empty wallet. What do I know?

Hey world! What do you think? Obama or McCain?

Here at home in the United (yet completely divided) States, the polls are showing that we have a real barn-burner of a presidential election going on. But have you ever stopped to think about how the international community feels? I mean, who we elect as President can have a pretty significant impact on their daily hubbub as well. So what does the world think? We know they were less than thrilled when we 'elected' the big W in 2000, and most thought the US should be declared clinically insane when we decided to double-down on our idiocy in 2004. But now, in 2008, we are guaranteed someone new - well, one of them is pretty freaking old - but you get the point. Thankfully, our media pals across the pond, the BBC, were wondering the same thing and polled 22 countries over the course of July and August to find out the international opinion. So, what did they think?

Well, of the 22 nations polled, only 22 said they would prefer Obama to be the next US President over McCain. That's 22 nations that are just asking to get destroyed by the McCain/Give me a P! - give me an A! - give me an L! - give me an I! - give me an N! - ticket, should they be victorious in November.

But it was close, right? It was extremely close, with 12% favoring McCain, and Obama just a few ticks ahead at 49%. The other 39% of the world thinks we're already a lost cause and are currently urinating on the US dollar and laughing maniacally.

Clearly the world is biased, sexist, and in the tank with Obama and all of his lying, cheating supporters. So what if 100% of the countries in the world think Obama would be the better pick, 100% of the world is wrong. The only thing this poll shows is that foreigners are stupid. USA! USA! USA!

The countries involved in the over 22,000 person GlobeScan conducted poll were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain.

John McCain knows where at least 4 of those countries are, but would not commit to speaking with leaders of any of them.

Sarah Palin is set loose to speak for herself

I'll keep this short, because there is literally nothing I can say to even explain this.  This video from CNN shows us what we've all been waiting for...Sarah Palin - UNSCRIPTED!  And oh my God, did she deliver.  This is her response to a question regarding potential export bans on newly drilled US oil at a town hall forum in Grand Rapids, MI.  This masterpiece may rival Ms. South Carolina.  Please feel free to watch multiple times.

What do the people want?  A transcript you ask?  Well, a transcript you shall receive my good people.

TRANSCRIPT:
"Oil and coal? Of course, it's a fungible commodity and they don't flag, you know, the molecules, where it's going and where it's not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first," Palin said. "So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it's Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first."

I believe there is not a need for me to say anything else.

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild - A former Clinton supporter - to endorse McCain

In a stunning move sure to ruffle the DNC's feathers, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a former Hillraiser who rounded up over $100,000 for the Hillary Clinton campaign will now be endorsing senator John McCain. Forester de Rothschild, who is the CEO of EL Rothschild, a holding company with businesses around the world is married to international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. In an interview with CNN this summer, Lady Forester de Rothshild stated the following as her reason for not shifting her support to Barack Obama: “This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him. I feel like he is an elitist."

And Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild knows an elitist when she see's one. she can spot one from her 3,200-acre Rothschild family estate in Buckinghamshire, or from her tiny little condo (probably a studio) in New York. She could spot an elitist when she honeymooned at the White House in 2000, and she can spot one now. So she fits right in line with John McCain who has long called Obama an elitist. I mean, seriously, how elitist can this guy get? He's had every advantage in the world; he's a black male, who grew up without a father, was bounced around from Kansas, to Hawaii, to Indonesia in his youth, and was paying off student loans up until a few years ago. ELITIST!

Meanwhile, Obama was endorsed yesterday by 6 Women's Rights Groups: The Feminist Majority Foundation, the National Organization for Women, Business and Professional Women/USA, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Congress of Black Women and the Women's Information Network.

Were you aware of any of that? No? Well, apparently neither were many of the major media outlets in the nation. CNN, who has highlighted the Lady Forester de Rothshild endorsement has as of today, failed to make note of it. Not that the opinions of tens of thousands of women can even come close to the importance of the opinion of Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. If you'd like to know more about Lady Rothschild, have a read of the below article which prefaced an interview she did with Politico.com - you'll clearly see that we need to listen to this women about how much of an elitist Obama is. I pasted the story directly as the link is a little funky and makes your computer want to cry. I'll keep checking CNN Tabloid news to see if they care to mention those 6 women's rights groups.

From Politico.com

When 67-year-old British banking scion Sir Evelyn Rothschild first set eyes on 44-year-old Lynn Forester at the 1998 Bilderberg conference—the matchmaker was none other than Henry Kissinger—she was already a woman of major means.A corporate lawyer and telecommunications entrepreneur, the sparkly blond ex-wife of former New York politician Andrew Stein had made more than $100 million from the sale of cleverly acquired wireless broadband licenses. She was also sexy, charming, and dazzlingly well connected. Two years later, after the smitten Sir Evelyn divorced his second wife, Victoria Schott, the mother of his three children, Forester became the third Lady Rothschild.

After marrying in November 2000 at a London synagogue, they honeymooned at the White House, guests of Lynn's good friends Bill and Hillary Clinton.Today the New Jersey-born Lady de Rothschild—the flashiest hostess in London—is mates with Tony and Cherie Blair, among other topflight Britons. She's also mistress of the former John Singer Sargent home in Chelsea and of Ascott House, the 3,200-acre Rothschild family estate in Buckinghamshire, and the chief executive of E.L. Rothschild, the holding company that she owns with her third husband to manage investments in the Economist and various enterprises in India. Those include FieldFresh, a startup that will grow and export Indian fruits and vegetables for markets in Europe and Asia, and a soon-to-be-announced retail venture aimed at the exploding Indian middle class.

In July, Sir Evelyn completed the sale of his stake in the centuries-old English branch of the Rothschild banking empire (for a reported $600 million)—which frees up a lot of capital for them to be major players in the Indian business world.