What happens if you think about the Obama Administration?
Written by Michael Vass
I was just thinking about something recently. Just the way that politicians have shifted what they say as facts change around them.
The biggest recent example has to be the report on how the Obama Stimulus has worked so far. If you recall, back in February the Obama Administration was boasting broadly that the stimulus would create or “save” 3.5 million jobs - 1 million of which would be in this year. it was to be the first example of the “Change you can believe in”.
Examples of what we were told include (but are not limited to):
And of course there were the 150,000 jobs created or “saved” in May. Which I resoundingly disputed along with CBS of all places
But that was speculation. Many believed the President and VP Joe Biden. They believed that with so much money spent, our money that must be recovered in taxes, there had to be a massive positive effect.
The result, as now provided on a State by State basis, is that 30,000 jobs were created or “saved”. Yes I said 30,000 and not 1 million or 3/4 of a million or even the 150,000 claimed in May. A sum total of 30,000 jobs at a cost of over $2.1 billion dollars. That’s roughly $71,000 per job - with the average job paying about $30,000 each. Yes, I know the numbers don’t add up to the $70 billion or so spent of the Obama Stimulus so far this year.
So what has the Obama Stimulus done? Well in hard hit States like Rhode Island it provided 6 jobs. That’s created or “saved” 6 total jobs. It has caused 344,000 American families to have less food on their tables than without the Obama Stimulus. It has directly contributed to the current $1.4 Trillion deficit to the national budget. Oh, and it made a bunch of skate parks.
Looking at it another way
And it got worse from there.
But here is my thought. Considering how well the Government has done with the Obama Stimulus, and the extra $2 billion cost of Cash For Clunkers (which included delays that some still have not been paid I believe), and the plans for a Cap & Trade Bill that will increase the cost of electricity for individuals and businesses, how can we believe that Health Care Reform will work?
Right now there are 5 separate Health Care Reform Bills. Every one of them costs in excess of $1 Trillion. Not one of them is fully written, thus no one has read the complete plan of what they will cost, what they will do, and how it will be paid for.
I ask the Obama supporters, please explain why I should have any confidence in what President Obama, VP Joe Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid says?
I ask everyone else, how happy will you be when the White House backtracks from the promised gains and benefits of the Health Care Reform (and Cap & Trade) even though you will have to pay more in taxes and the nation will be in greater debt, while jobs likely will be in much the same status as now?
That’s what I call a stimulus
Written by Michael Vass
Among the many things that Germans are known for, efficiency is perhaps the top of the list that comes to mind. So it may be no surprise that a select group of German businesses have found a way to really stimulate consumers.
The key to the idea is that German has legal prostitution. It’s basically like Nevada. And believe it or not, business has slowed down for the German brothels. I can only imagine how bad their economy must be. But several enterprising Germans have thought of ways to not only stimulate the economy, they are being ‘green’ about it.
For customers that use public transportation, or a bicycle, to arrive at the brothel, a 7% (in U.S. dollars) discount is given. The idea is not only considered unique, it is supported by several of the upscale businesses in the area of the Capital of German that surround the brothel.
Sadly, since there is no way of proving a customer walked to the brothel, no discount is given for joggers or those that claim to be on foot. Still the idea is taking hold. Other stimulus minded ideas that previously didn’t work out quite right include a flat-rate price for an unlimited time visit (normally visits are only for 45 minutes). That was shut down over concerns for the prostitutes rights and cleanliness issues, not due to a lack of consumers.
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress should pay attention. This is a green idea, its a stimulus plan that is effective and takes immediate effect, it probably will help other businesses (like those that sell Viagra), and consumers like it. All 3 of which are things that the Obama Stimulus fails at miserably.
I’m not saying that brothels should be legal in America (I don’t work for or with ACORN), but the concept of doing something that works seems to be beyond the politicians in Washington D.C.
Tax the ‘rich’ - it’s not my money
Written by Michael Vass
I was speaking with a friend over the weekend about the interview Sean Hannity and Michael Moore had. My friend was mostly aligned with Michael Moore, I was not. In the discussion we came to the big question, do businesses and the “rich” pay a fair amount of taxes.
The opinion of my friend was much along the lines of Moore and many Liberals. That businesses and the “rich” don’t pay enough, and thus more should be taken. When I asked what was the definition of “rich” my friend stated “anything over $100,000″. To say that I was shocked was the least of things. Then again my friend makes about the average in the area I live - roughly $27,000. So $100k is almost 5x the annual, and thus I understand the thought that it is rich.
Then I decided to ask, how much should such a person pay in taxes. My friend responded 70%. Again I was shocked. But in my friends mind, the $30,000 that would be left of the money is more than they make and thus easy to live on.
And this is where the problem lies I believe. Many Liberals base their logic on false assumptions and lack of knowledge.
Right now a person making $100,000 pays roughly 60% of their income in taxes - depending on the State and City they live in. If you add in the cost of a home mortgage, gasoline, electricity, and food (for 3 people) they net roughly $18,000. That doesn’t include car insurance, kids clothes, car repairs, a phone and/or cellphone (for them or their kids), medical bills, computer repairs/internet connectivity, cable, vacations, Christmas/Birthday gifts, religious tithings, credit card bills, or if anything is left over retirement savings. Notice that I left out a savings accounts and any rainy day money. Because it is likely that there isn’t money for any of that. $100,000 isn’t rich at all, though I will conceed that $250,000 is closer to the mark.
But what if the person in question also owns their own business? It gets really bad then.
First, let’s say that you own a small business. You generate something like $250,000 a year. That’s rich by some standards, but it really isn’t. Take out the cost of employees, say 2 of them. At minimum wage you get $14,000 each, not including unemployment insurance and SS. Take out the cost of raw goods, on average no more than 40% of revenue (in a good economy) - $100,000. Take out electricity, shipping, equipment, sales, phone, water, workspace rent, are you getting the point? Without taking a salary it can cost some $200,000 to run a business. And the owner of a small business never works 9-5, that would be a nice slow day. But after it’s all said and done, $50,000 isn’t too bad.
That $50,000 though turns into a mere $30,000 after taxes (at best). Then come the other costrs and suddenly there is nothing left. But imagine if President Obama and other liberals got their wishes. And taxes went to 70%. The businessman above would not only go broke, driving the unemployment rates higher due to the employees losing their jobs, but the mortgage failure rate could go up if they didn’t own the house outright. Plus as a real fun fact, many business owners cannot get unemployment as they don’t qualify. Even though they pay tons of taxes via the business and personally, they cannot gain any safety if things go bad or taxes increase. And right now both are happening.
I realize that this is not the most accurate example that could be made. I’m not trying to make it perfect to the math. The point is that right now, and even in good markets, most of the people liberals shout about not paying enough are barely clearing the cost of living. And they do so without any of the safety nets that employees get, while doing far more work. How much more does it take to break a camel’s back?
Could millionaires and billionaires pay more in taxes? Probably, though nothing is stoping Moore or Warren Buffett, or George Soros, from donating as much money as they want to the IRS. Though I am definitely aware that none of them has done so. Yet they want more of other peoples money to go to taxes they are unwilling to pay.
Still, the cry for higher taxes inevitiably will include more than just the millionaire+ brackets. The middle class and the small business owners always get caught in the higher tax traps. Which squeezes their ability to live even in good markets.
Maybe I’d feel different if people like Soros and Moore put their money where their sizable mouths are, but I doubt it.
6 months of President Obama - what do we have to show?
Written by Michael Vass
On May 27th, President Obama stated that his $787 billion stimulus plan “saved or created” 150,000 jobs. On that same day, the expectations of a GM bankruptcy ensured that at least 20,000 jobs would be lost imminently. Which said nothing of the at least 50,000 jobs that were lost immediately due to the Chrylser bankruptcy. Since February over 1.6 million jobs have been conservatively lost, over $50 billion dollars of borrowed public money has been spent only to be lost in bankruptcy, and the economy has failed to improve.
In fact, the number of mortgages in bad standing (late at least 1 month) has grown to 12%, the highest level yet. At least 50% of all subprime mortgages are late at this moment. And unemployment rates are expected to continue to grow until mid-2010 – by the conservative estimates.
Which all stands in the face of the continued statements of the White House that 600,000 jobs will be “created or saved” this summer. Numbers that are impossible to verify, and like the 150,000 quote balk in the face of reality.
Still, there is the fact that a mere $44 billion of the $787 billion that the public is paying interest on has been spent so far. Which questions why so much money, that was promised as necessary and immediate, was allocated yet remains unused. It implies that the need was both not immediate and not as enormous as was done. Or in more crude terms, the White House and the Democrat-led Congress lied to the public.
But why was this done? What might be behind all this action for inaction? Well perhaps the answer can be found in the other things the Obama Administration has done, with the Democrat-led Congress acting as a cheerleading squad at every turn.
Congress passed a $410 billion spending bill to keep the Government running. That bill included specific legislation to guarantee the bonuses of AIG executives as they stood pre-bailout. The bonus packages could have been rewritten, but instead were actively protected by Senator Chris Dodd. Which gave Congress the following:
- A chance to blame Wall Street for excessive pay
- A chance to enact retro-active laws that effectively stole the legally paid executives. This violated contract law, and the Constitution.
- A chance to give the Secretary of the Treasury the power to absorb ANY company deemed significant to the economy. Significant was never defined.
- A chance for the Treasury to dictate the salary of private business employees, whether or not the company involved was deemed significant as abovementioned.
- A chance to create several “czar” positions. These positions enable the Government to be directly involved, and controlling, the actions of private businesses.
So far, President Obama has taken control of more businesses than he has ever worked at in his life. So far the Government has more control over industries than President Obama has degrees. And this is all while President Obama promises that he does not want Government in the private sector.
I take the protests of President Obama much like he kept his promise about removing 100% of all earmarks. He passed the $410 billion spending bill (which like the stimulus is not included in his $3.5 trillion budget) with 9,000 earmarks. He stated that he would work on the earmarks he promised to remove at some point in the future. Which is when I will believe that the actions of the Obama Administration and Congress are not well thought out plans that are socializing the country.
6 months into the Presidency and we have seen massive changes to the legal system, our foundation of law, the concept and ability to enact private business, and the size of an ever-growing Government. In the near future we will look forward to a Supreme Court Justice that epitomizes racial bias, spending millions to try detainees from Gitmo, hundreds of thousands on jailing said detainees, increased food costs as the ethanol glut increases almost exponentially, inflation, and a nuclear Iran. Oh, I left out the fact that North Korea is more than ready to resume a 50 year old war.
I just wonder how many people who heard President Obama promise change thought this would be the result? But just wait. There is still another 3 ½ years to go. Imagine what will change next.
President Obama polispeak about 150,000 jobs
Written by Michael Vass
I love the way the Government, and by that I mean the Obama Administration, throws numbers at the public without any regard for accuracy or accountability. Let’s look at the claim by the Obama Administration that the $787 billion stimulus package has already created or saved 150,000 jobs.
First of all that’s just complete polispeak. There isn’t a solid fact in that statement beyond the fact that the Government is spending $787 billion. And the Government knows it.
The Government does not have any data on a single job saved. In fact there is no system in existence ever to determine that a job has been saved. You could just as easily have stated that the sun rose yesterday and that saved millions of jobs. The means of proof is exactly the same, because I said so.
As for jobs created, well that is just as dubious a statement. The Obama Administration may like the idea of being a part of private business, but so far it is not a part of every company out there. Thus it has no idea how many jobs have been directly created from the money allocated so far. In fact the Government has no idea what projects have been started, or how wisely the money given to States has been spent.
According to one source, a grand total of 50 jobs have been created directly from the stimulus package in New York State, with a whopping 1 in Massachusetts. These are the confirmed reports to date. So much for just saying so.
Of course one indication of jobs being created or saved would be the unemployment numbers. They come out each month and directly reflect jobs lost. In February, when the colossal waste of money was approved by the Democrat-led Congress, there were 133,682,000 unemployed. At the end of March the number stood at 133,019,000. That’s a net loss of 663,000. According to my own interpretation of the Dept of Labor numbers some 1,309,000 people lost their jobs since the stimulus bill was passed – from February thru April.
The official numbers from Labor on May won’t be out for another 2 weeks, but for the Obama Administration and Democrats to be correct a net of no less than 813,000 jobs must be noted as gained. That will show a net gain as President Obama states (though that will still be short on the data I directly collected, but I’m giving the benefit of doubt that my math was wrong). Otherwise it means that no jobs were net created and the stimulus package is a failure that is losing jobs – which I will prove to be true.
Of course the Obama Administration has an answer for that
“It doesn’t mean that employment has risen by 150,000,” Thomas E. Gavin of the White House budget office said in an e-mail. “Rather, it means that employment is 150,000 jobs better than it otherwise would have been.”
Don’t you feel better now? Feel more secure in your job? Well here is that proof I mentioned.
Keep in mind that since the bonfire otherwise known as a stimulus plan passed, Chrysler has declared bankruptcy. And along with it went $10 billion, and more than 60,000 jobs (just from the over 1800 dealerships that were closed nationwide, averaging 35 people per dealership conservatively). The Obama stimulus didn’t save a single one. In fact it can be argued that the Obama Administration helped to force Chrysler into bankruptcy.
Let’s not forget that GM is about to follow suit. That will have wasted some $15 billion and will cause another likely tens of thousands of job losses. Which will INCREASE the unemployment of the nation. If the GM bankruptcy cost only a similar number of job losses that’s over 120,000 jobs lost (just from car dealerships alone). Where exactly did the job increases, or saved jobs, President Obama quotes come from? If you know, I think the White House Budget office would like to know.
But to admit these facts is hardly politically advantageous. It will not help guarantee the further plans of wanton spending that President Obama and the Democrats want. It might even cost the President more of his slowly eroding popularity.
Once again Democrats have proven that a smile, polispeak, and a bunch of numbers pulled out of thin air are far more valuable than asking a politician to do the job they were elected to.
Fake boobs offend Ohio town
Written by Black Entertainment USA
I hate hypocrites. Seriously, what is worse? Here is one example.
In Ohio, there is a guy who owns a burger joint. Like everyone these days, he is having trouble with making sales. So in a bit of inspiration, he decided to place a life-sized mannequin outside his store. So far I don’t think anyone has a question.
But the mannequin is a woman. And clothed in a bikini. And the hypocrites came out in a storm.
“It’s a sensational ploy to attract gawkers,” neighbor Chris Broering said.
Are you kidding me?
Let’s see if we got this right. In a nation where Levi’s advertises spontaneous unprotected sex among 20-somethings, throughout the day in television commercials, in a nation where kids have access 24/7 to music videos objectifying women and glorifying drugs, a mannequin in a bikini is sensational?
I have to wonder if anyone has watched a soap opera in the last 2 decades. Maybe they have failed to watch a PG movie in the past 15 years. Somehow they have avoided television commercials going back to the early 80’s. Because every one of these are far more provocative and explicit than a mannequin in a bikini.
Hell, where do you think Kenny Tessel got the idea for his K.T.’s Barbeque from? Going to church or companies that make billions of dollars and have tens of millions of viewers? I bet that if I open a local magazine for clothing, look at local billboards for perfume, cars, music, and/or movies I will see more suggestive and revealing images than the mannequin. But no one is complaining about that.
The local town council has said the mannequin is ok if it has a tshirt on. I’d gladly donate my Wanna Ride t-shirt for the mannequin. But considering that sales for Tessel went up 40% since having the fake model, I suggest he go right back to what was working. If the town doesn’t like it, they can buy the store from him.
I wonder how the latest Bond movie, or any number of movies with gratuitous sex or cleavage did in Reading. Because if they made any money at all, I’d not only tell them what to do with their ideas for a business they don’t own, I’d sue to hammer my point home.
Chrysler - the bad bet of President Obama
Written by Michael Vass
You know what’s really sad about the economy? What really angers me about the bailouts? The way that the Obama Administration, Congress, and the Bush Administration have all wasted our money.
Yes even the anointed President Barack Obama is complicit in the waste of money that has been the bailouts and stimulus package. While President Bush started this waterfall of taxpayer money, and Congress has failed in every respect on these matters, President Obama has jumped in with both feet on making this a costly mistake since day 1.
Chrysler has now declared bankruptcy. They told America they would back in November of 2008 when they didn’t get the full bailout they requested, along with the rest of the U.S. automakers. Rather than allowing the automakers to do the inevitable, the Government has thrown away our money in amounts that are near incomprehensible. Chrysler alone is responsible for some $10 billion of our money that will now not only fail to send our kids to school, or buy new homes, or build new businesses, but has effectively vaporized.
Of course there will be a cheer from Democrats since the American Government now owns 8% of Chrysler. What a bargain. They paid more than top dollar for a miniscule percentage of ownership, that currently is worthless. But don’t worry, the Government can always buy more with your taxes and printing as much money as it wants. Your kid didn’t need college anyway.
This is not a joke. I’m being serious. President Obama announced to the nation, along with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, that the only way to save American jobs and fend off a depression was to keep the automakers out of bankruptcy. That was a big part of the $1.29 trillion that President Obama spent in the first 100 days. Yet bankruptcy is what has happened.
Can you imagine $10 billion dollars? Does it make sense? Imagine a stack of dollar bills that reaches to the moon and back, with lots of money left over. That’s how much money just disappeared.
Had the Democrat leadership just said no, and allowed the car makers to fail there would be that much more money available to help people survive this outcome. There would be that much money ready to help new smaller businesses to pick up the pieces of the failed companies and create new jobs and innovation. But the Government knows better than you or I. The Government can manage everything better - though facts to the contrary abound.
Think about this. If the Government is wrong about the billions it gave Chrysler, which has been proven by the bankruptcy, what else is it wrong about? That a depression will not be the outcome of this action? That they wasted more of our money on bad ideas than AIG, the automakers, and most of the major banks combined? That the total of the Congress and the President have less knowledge and acumen in the world of business than your local paperboy?
Each of the political parties is culpable in this mess. They all have played their part in creating this fiasco over the past two decades at least. But I must say that all the polispeak of President Obama stands out the most. Because the buck stops at the President, and his assurances are the ones that have failed the biggest right now.
I am pissed off because of in my forced ownership of Chrysler (via the bailouts using my cash like yours), I gain nothing. Had I made the choice of what to do with my money, I would have kept it in my pocket. Or gone out to a small dinner and helped the economy. Or added it to my investments (though future taxes on those investments would surely be more than the some of money I started with). I might even had given it to charity (though the tax on that gift might have been more than my charitable gift now that President Obama raised the taxes on that too).
Simply put, the President and the Democrat-led Congress made a bad bet. If they were a publicly run corporation I’d have shorted their stock long ago. But instead of their stock price going down, national unemployment is continuing to rise, my tax bill is increasing, I’m paying a mortgage of other Americans on top of my own mortgage, and I get to fear for my ability to maintain just what I have. Because they made their bets with my money, and yours.
This will no doubt be spun to blame everyone but the current Administration and Congress. There will be no end to the flowery views of future green cars and some abundant productivity in the future. But the fact staring us all in the face is that all those dreams would have been just as true, and likely, without an extra $10 billion in debt for the nation.
Don’t blink, Democrats might have paused on spending your money
Written by Michael Vass
Perhaps the most stunning news to be announced since President Obama won the election has just been made. It has nothing to do with global warming, creating green energy, or nationalized healthcare. It has nothing to do with the growing problems with China, Iran, or Afghanistan. But it does deal with the monumental spending that has occurred since the beginning of the year.
For the first time since Democrats have overtaken the Congress there is going to be some restraint in the spending spree. Yes, that is shocking. Said by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself, the Democrats might not spend even more money just because they can. Amazing.
This of course is in reference to the possibility of a second stimulus package (the first best described as the ‘Obama gift to liberals’). The mere concept of which denotes the complete failure of the first Obama stimulus package.
Yes confidence. Like the confidence that Representative Barney Frank, Chairman since 2007 of the Financial Services Committee – which he has been part of since 1981, had in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Or the confidence of Senator Chris Dodd – member of the Senate Banking Committee for 25 years and Chairman since 2007 –
“Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Committee of Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs since 2007, called Fannie and Freddie “one of the great success stories of all time” at another hearing in 2004, noting that they brought homeownership levels up to 70% of the American populace. As recently as last July, Dodd called the two entities “viable” institutions that were “fundamentally, fundamentally strong.”
Or the confidence you might feel when President Obama states that his economic plans (blunders in my mind) will “save OR create 3.5 million jobs”[emphasis added by me]. A statement that is factually impossible to prove. In addition to being polispeak for ‘my ass is covered no matter what happens’ – in my opinion.
The confidence these critical lawmakers display is awe inspiring, if you happen to be an anarchist or stock market bear. This is especially true when you consider that Democrats waited for a Democrat President to be in office before spending $410 billion on keeping the Government afloat – including 9000 earmarks that President Obama directly stated in his campaign to be elected would be checked line by line to avoid wasteful spending.
Yes you can feel very confident that either President Obama lied to the American public, is impotent before a Democrat led Congress, or that both the President and Congress just don’t care how much they spend as long as they can get everything they have wished for in the past 30 years - to the tune of $3.5 trillion just for this years budget.
What else could explain the $787 billion dollar stimulus package that neither stimulates new businesses, encourages job growth, nor provides an incentive for Americans to buy anything. But that same package does wonders for just about every liberal goal and social engineering agenda you can name.
But it seems that for the moment Democrats have paused on the all-out spend at every turn mentality that is the hallmark of the Obama Administration so far. I feel as if I just won the lottery.
How much do you deserve? Who gets to decide?
Written by Michael Vass
Here is a problem. And it’s a big one. Who deserves the right to decide how much money you should get paid?
What if I told you that the Government has decided that as an employee (not of the Government, but of private business) you deserve no more than $25,000. It doesn’t matter that you went to college, got a degree, and owe tens of thousands of dollars. It doesn’t matter that prior to Government intervention you were making $125,000. Because the Government thinks that $25,000 is enough to live on. Would you be happy?
What if you own a business? Maybe a grocery store, or a restaurant. Or perhaps a dentist office, or a car garage. And the Government said that even though you work 60 or more hours a week, every week, usually without vacation, you only deserve to be paid $75,000 or less? It doesn’t matter that the business makes enough to pay you $200,000. It doesn’t matter how hard you work, or what the business is worth. Because they think that is more than enough. Because executive pay should be capped.
Do you see the problem?
I think most people can accept that the Government has no right to say how much money they make if they don’t work for the Government. That’s why we have private business. That’s why our economy is the greatest in the world – even in a downturn.
But the upcoming rules to be stated by President Obama say exactly that. Keep an ear open though, as the exact wording will be far more pleasant to hear. It will be packaged under the guise of reigning in the “runaway excesses of the financial industry and Wall street greed.” And it will be phrased as a means of ensuring executives are responsible with the bailout money President Obama plans to give them.
Now I have long said that an executive, a CEO, does not deserve a huge pay package (in excess of millions) for work where a company is in trouble or worse off than when they started. That’s not their job. And if a CEO is fired for poor performance, thus endangering the health of the company, they definitely don’t deserve a golden parachute. Conversely though, if they improve the company, thus ensuring growth and job stability, they certainly do deserve a huge payout bonus. But that is for the shareholders of the company to determine, not the Government and not arbitrarily.
It can be said, and with good reason, that any company that has accepted Government money has the Government as a shareholder (at least). And I can accept that. Except the proposed limits are not just for companies that receive Government funds.
• Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.
• Requiring nonbinding “say on pay” resolutions — that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.
• A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.”
I have a problem with the Government telling me how much money I deserve to make for the work I do. And if you think the Government will not do this, recall that there is no Department, Agency, or Division of the Government I can name in the last 40 years that has gotten smaller or given up power they held. Can you?
Once Government has established the ability to determine the wages of any private group of citizens, it can do it for all citizens. And it will always be stated as something for the good of the nation. Until it’s not.
There is a name for this kind of system, its called communism. And the nations that have tried to live with that system have all had it fail. Unless you have lived where people line up for their ration of meat – the best of which has been siphoned off for black market sales – you may not see the problem with all of this. But I have, and I was beyond greatful that I was an American and could afford the black market goods.
“long-term overhaul of executive compensation” – listen to that. What exactly does it mean? Who does it apply to? Who will determine what is executive compensation?
That is not a free market. That is not a capitalist strategy. That is not why I own my company and work hard long hours. I don’t bust my arse in my own company because I hope one day to have the Government act as my employer and tell me how much I can make with absolute authority.
This is a problem. And I don’t care how it’s sugar-coated, it’s a bitter pill to try to make me swallow. And how long will it be before the Government decides to tell us where to spend our money? Or what to do with our own time? It’s a slippery slope and we are riding down the path like a bat out of hell.
A bit of pre-Super Bowl spice
Written by Michael Vass
Well there is some time before the Super Bowl starts, so I thought I’d add some spice in honor of Valentine’s Day. Since everyone is aware that I have 18 clothing lines, and adding more regularly, with over 1500 designer items I figured I’d show off one of my latest t-shirts.
As male models go, I think I’m not bad for my age (40). Hopefully the ladies will agree. Please do be kind.
Of course this is just one of the multiple lines I have for Men’s clothing. And there is no shortage of ideas that are coming up. But I like to keep the model pictures somewhat even, and of course with realistic people. Because if you think I look good in my clothing, I’m sure others will look even better.
Of course there are the photo shotos of my other models as well. Like the recent 2009 calendar model Ashley France
And 2009 male calendar model Shawn Kennedy
And from my first couple of photo shoots, Amamda Chestnut
But check out the online store for yourself. I’m sure you will find something you like, or a great gift for Valentine’s Day.
And I am still looking for more models, so if you are interested do let me know.
House Democrats are scamming your money
Written by Michael Vass
I had a friend ask me why the Republicans are causing trouble. The reference was to why all the House Republicans (and 11 Democrats) voted against the Stimulus Package. And when I mentioned some of the things I have long written, I was asked for more details.
Now I imagine others are wondering about details as well. How can I claim this is a horrible plan that will bankrupt America if there are no specifics. How can I be sure that this won’t stimulate the economy. Perhaps this is just a giant plot of Republicans to make President Obama look bad.
Well back in the land of reality, I decided to see if I could find a few more details on the stimulus package. And here are some of the things your money is being spent on. Remember that this is your money, and you will have to pay for this out of your pocket sometime soon.
-
$245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency
$175 million to buy and restore floodplain easements for flood prevention
$2.7 billion for rural water and waste disposal direct loans
$150 million for emergency food assistance
$50 million for regional economic development commissions
$1 billion for “Periodic Censuses and Programs”
$650 million for Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program
$100 million for “Scientific and Technical Research and Services” at the National Institute of Standards And Technology
$30 million for necessary expenses of the “Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership”
$300 million for a competitive construction grant program for research science buildings
$400 million for “habitat restoration and mitigation activities” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
$600 million for “accelerating satellite development and acquisition”
$140 million for “climate data modeling”
$3 billion for state and local law enforcement grants
$1 billion for “Community Oriented Policing Services”
$250 million for “accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey.”
$50 million for repairs to NASA facilities from storm damage
$200 million for “academic research facilities modernization”
$100 million for “Education and Human Resources
$4.5 billion to make military facilities more energy efficient
$18.5 billion for “Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy” research in the Department of Energy
$2.4 billion to demonstrate “carbon capture and sequestration technologies”
$6 billion for energy efficiency projects on government buildings
$600 million to buy and lease government plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles
$150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums
$700 million for “comparative effectiveness research” on prescription drugs
$1 billion for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
$1 billion for Amtrack
Again this is only part of the list of things that are needed “immediately”, and will “improve the economy”. Please do correct me and explain how Food assistance, research, or climate data modeling are going to improve the economy and help the guy/gal down the block keep their job at the local Macy’s or Office Depot. Please explain how those ex-employees of Home Depot are going to feed their family and pay the bills for the next 2 or 3 years because of repairs to NASA or Earth science research.
I dare you.
Do I think funding for education is important? Definitely. Is it part of a stimulus package meant to help people stay employed tomorrow? No. Thus anything that does not help the NATION create jobs or maintain employment is a waste of time and money in this package.
If Democrats really wanted to improve things, why not take the billions of dollars that are being wasted, roughly $36 billion just from the examples I cited above, and give it directly to the public. That would be about $123 for ever man, woman, and child in the United States right now. Take out children and those not paying taxes (since they can’t repay they don’t get the benefits) and you get around $250 each.
There is still another $790 billion more to look at. Think that there might be just a bit more waste in the 25% of the package that won’t even be spent for 2 or 3 more years. How abut just giving us the money today and not wait 3 years. That would be almost $2,500 each. That would stimulate the economy.
But that isn’t going to happen. Which means the entire package is nothing more than polispeak, and a way for the Government to gain more control of your life. The Republicans that voted against this aren’t bad guys, they are actually helping you. But don’t expect the major media to explain it.
M V Consulting, Inc. Announces Milestone at Black Entertainment USA
Written by Michael Vass
New York (PRWEB) December 2, 2008 — M V Consulting, Inc. announced today the achievement of a major milestone breakthrough within its Black Entertainment USA blog (BEB). The BEB blog, which is focused on entertainment news, sports, movie previews and reviews, television shows, and race relations issues in the media has been in existence for 3 years. In that time it has grown to be in the top .1% of blogs (out of the estimated 100 million+ in the world) with visitors from 125 nations every month.
Black Entertainment USA has now published its 1000th post. This milestone places the entertainment blog alongside some of the largest blogs, many national newspapers, and beyond most magazines in terms of publication rates. In 3 years the blog has gone from an unknown to maintaining readership that exceeds many mid-sized city periodicals.
In achieving 1000 posts, BEB has solidified its position as a leading internet destination for entertainment news commentary. Visitors read about all aspects of entertainment and interact with commentary as only the blogosphere allows. Hundreds have shared their thoughts, confirming the stature of the blog.
Michael Vass, President of M V Consulting, Inc., stated,
“Having crossed the 1000th post threshold at Black Entertainment USA, and nearly clearing 2000 posts when you include our political blog, I must admit my pleasure. The most important thing though has been the input and readership of tens of thousands of visitors each month.” Mr. Vass went on to say, “From across the globe, representing every walk of life and growing each month, the visitors to the blogs of the Company make it all worthwhile. And now advertisers are recognizing these achievements. It’s a great feeling.”
In addition to this major milestone there are several milestones in the other divisions at M V Consulting’s sites. These include:
- 1. Over 600 posts at the political orientated blog - VASS
- 2. The selection of VASS as 1 of 2 blogs that covered the entire Presidential election cycle for TV One’s online website
- 3. Exponential growth in key demographics of visitors such as 19 - 49 year olds, African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos, the college and post-college educated, and those earning $30,000 - $100,000 and above
- 4. The continued expansion of the clothing lines featured at the Company’s online store
- 5. Increased visitors to the Company’s online store
- 6. Success in gaining initial advertisers
- 7. Donations to charitable organizations and events growth
- 8. The purchase of new office spaces for the Company
Another milestone that has been achieved is the recognition of M V Consulting, Inc. President and primary author Michael Vass in the blogosphere. Mr. Vass has grown from obscurity to writing for the Company’s blogs to currently being the primary and/or contributing author at over 100 blogs besides those of the Company.
Additional growth of the Company will be detailed in the annual announcement.
About M V Consulting, Inc. and Michael Vass:
Mr. Michael Vass is a former securities industry account executive of good standing; and currently works as a consultant on the internet and investor relations, and social/political blog writing. He has served in the US Marine Corps Reserves, as well as worked and studied in such diverse fields as entertainment, communications, philosophy and chemistry. He has lived abroad, in Moscow and Tbilisi, as well as in various cities throughout the United States.
Mr. Vass is President of M V Consulting, Inc. a diversified private company that maintains divisions in search engine optimization, an online store, political and entertainment/celebrity blogs, and website/blog maintenence.
It is the combinations of these unique experiences that have led Mr. Vass to the creation of M V Consulting, Inc. The Company owns Black Entertainment USA (www.blackentertainmentblog.com), VASS (www.mvass.com), a corporate website (www.vassconsult.com), and an online store (www.cafepress.com/nova68).
About Black Entertainment USA
The blog focuses on the world of entertainment, celebrities and entertainers from the African American/Hispanic viewpoint of primary author Michael Vass. Trends in movies, commercials, and all other media in regard to race relations is another focal point of the website.
Bob Johnson is at it again
Written by Michael Vass
Bob Johnson. The only Black male billionaire in the United States. The man that created Black Entertainment Television (no relation to this blog).
Bob Johnson is getting back to his roots. That is he is proposing a new Black-oriented television network to compete with his former BET and TV One. And I would equate that to a crack dealer finding religion and then going back out to sell more crack. If that doesn’t sound complementary, it isn’t meant to be.
Bob Johnson’s BET has more than a few comparisons for drug dealing. Its main adiction it sold were music videos so repulsive in the style and message that no other cable channel would dare play them. Not even the once rebellious MTV. These images of belittling women, and glorification of violence were not the initial programming but the end result. The big pay off. And he sold this to Black audiences because their only choice was to drink sand.
Bob Johnson had the opportunity to present an image of African Americans to the world that is not seen in other media. He could have emphasized the businesses we run, the educations we gain, the success we derive out of difficult and unbalanced situations. He could have promoted the achievements we make in the arts, and the advances we tread in politics. Instead he made a lot of money on the backs of the people he proposed to serve.
And now he plans to do it again.
Urban Television is Bob Johnson’s new brand of crack so to speak. The goals sound lofty, but so did those at BET. The plea to the Government to back his venture are the same he stated before. And you can see the result right now, you might even be in time to see the movie Soul Plane.
Whether or not Bob Johnson launches Urban Television, he’s rich. He might be feeling remorse for the accusations he leveled at Barack Obama during the Democratic Primaries. He might be trying to make amends for the damage that BET has done over the years. He could even make a quality station that really does promote an image of African Americans as anything besides minstrels and pitbulls.
But I for one do not trust his intentions. I do not forget the high ideals he issued before diving to the gutter. I recall all to well his sell-out and escape to the fast lane. I don’t begrudge his money, just the way he got it. And I won’t help him get more.
Citigroup - what was known and when?
Written by Michael Vass
This year Christmas has come before December, especially if you are a money center bank, a brokerage house, insurance company, or car manufacturer. For regular people though the holiday may not arrive at all. Such is the way things happen when the Government gets involved.
The news is out now that Citigroup will receive another $20 billion, with guarantees for $306 billion in assets, before the holiday season ends. In fact they should have the money, your money, in hand before the holiday season officially starts this Friday. Santa it seems has a 401k.
The good part of this is that Citi should not fail. Thus money will be stable in over 100 countries around the world, for the time being. Another bonus that New York City officials must love is that Citi will not be sold off in parts, and thus tens of thousands of additional jobs should be secure. And there is a better than 50% chance that many of the major bonuses that help the Big Apple float will be paid out (contractual obligations don’t end when the company gets a Government bailout). And in all honesty that is a good thing for the U.S. economy too, as long as they spend the money and not hoard it in fear of future layoffs.
The bad thing is that none of the officials tasked with resolving the financial crisis the nation is in foresaw this event. Chriss Dodd and Barney Frank didn’t see it coming, not because they were asleep at the wheel like when they promised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be ok, because they were too busy blaming anyone but themselves for missing the problem. Treasury Secretary Paulson missed it. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke missed it too.
Not one of these men, each tasked with identifying this continuing problem, envisioned this problem. They have dozens of staffers and hundreds working behind the scenes crunching numbers. Yet they all missed the chance of this happening. And the public is left to assume that it was so sudden they couldn’t have known.
Not true.
I said that in December of 2007. That’s without being a stockbroker for years, without financial racords, conversations with CEO’s, discussion of the Fed, data from international sources, or Congressional committees. Just me reading the news and analyzing the public information.
I in fact went on to say
“Will those experiencing deflation outweigh the inflation fears? And if more people lose their homes how much of our financial institutions are we willing to sell to avoid the harshest realities of a crash?”
I knew Citigroup was in trouble a year ago. I knew there would be a major crisis from the mortgage industry, and that a bear market would hit the stock market. And I defined it several times, months in advance, in detail. The main thing I have been wrong on is the severity and speed at which all these things happened.
My point about this is simple. If I can figure out how bad things were, and most likely will continue to get, then what the hell were all these people whose only job is to figure this out doing!?
If they can’t get off they political posteriors, open their Government entrenched eyes, and understand the degree of a problem that is apparent to a guy on a computer in Binghamton – without even a stock ticker – they why are we giving them control of $700 billion and more? How can we expect that a single dollar of that money will be put to a use that is effective?
Case in point. Citigroup is in big trouble. They insure themselves internally. They are failing. So what is the value of the $306 billion in assets today, what was it yesterday? Are we guaranteeing a value that was intially set for these assets, the current market value of these assets, or are we getting to pick up the debt and bad loans of Citigroup mixed in with actual assets? The difference is very important. And I doubt if Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are even aware that this question should be asked.
I asked how much are we willing to sell to avoid a problem a year ago. Today I am looking forweard and I have to ask a different question. How much of the American capitalist system the nation functions on are we willing to lose to avoid the pain of this crisis? And if we are willing to comnpromise the basis of our economy, how do we prevent losing the freedoms a solcialist nation cannot tolerate?
Black buying power and advertising
Written by Michael Vass
As the holiday and Christmas seasons quickly approach, even as the stock market and economy falter, I wanted to take a moment to reflect on something that came up in a conversation with a friend of mine. The power of African Americans in the marketplace and the desire for advertising on Black media.
There is no question that Blacks buy things just as every group in America does. But if you were to look at most of the media coverage you might believe that African Americans are laden down with debt and/or depend on the Government for survival. Such a perception is both ignorant and false. And advertisers know it.
Recent projections place the African-American buying power at about $845 billion annually, growing to $1.1 trillion by 2012. That means the buying power of Blacks equals the money spent by the Government this year to save the entire financial and mortgage industries. This amount dwarfs the money being debated and requested by the auto industry. And this is more than double the money that is to be spent by the Government for the 2nd stimulus plan in 2009.
Targeted advertising cost up to 73% more for African Americans than any other group. That’s because the top 17% of affluent African Americans contribute 45% to all the buying power in any 1 year. And Pew research reports have shown that up to 2/3 prefer to emphasis their ethnic identity.
All of that money is part of the reason of the success of Black filmmakers, like Spike Lee and Tyler Perry. It is also part of the support to BET, and various television shows that star prominently African American actors/actresses. And it is one of the reasons why advertisers are including and/or directly marketing to Blacks. McDonald’s was one of the first to do this, but today hundreds of companies are doing so.
And the blogosphere is quickly becoming one of the major focal points of advertisers. Because the buying power of African Americans has grown 166% since 1990, the ability of blogs focused on or attracting African Americans to retain a steady daily influx of viewers is important. The internet allows visitors to connect with their favorite sites several times in a day as new posts are added to the blogs throughout the day; as I have seen in my own blogs as an example.
Political blogs were a huge resource in the Presidential election, and I can personally attest to TV One’s interest as VASS was selected as one of 2 blogs to provide daily coverage of the entire election cycle for their online visitors. Similar is true of all blogs, and especially those targeting African Americans.
Add to this the fact that the Black population tends to be younger and female (though my readers are about 50/50 for gender, age 12 - 49 predominantly, college or better educated, middle class incomes or better, and generally single); which advertisers are obsessive in their efforts to gain attention with. Not to mention that home ownership for African Americans is up 32% since 1990, and that the buying power of African Americans in just 3 states (New York, Texas, and Georgia) equals the money spent by the Government on AIG for fear of a complete collapse of the economy.
Black teens spend more money on clothing, video games, PC software and footwear than the average of the entire nation. In fact it could be argued that without Black teens athletic shoes, cell phones, DVD’s, and fast food industries might all lose their profits. And that says nothing of the fact that magazines like GQ, Entrepreneur, Inc. and others rely on the more than 25% readership that comes from African Americans.
Advertisers have increased spending in Black media by 72%, some 791 million dollars in 2006 alone. The automotive (GM leads), communications, cosmetics (L’O’real SA leads) industries and others (Dell, Procter & Gamble, Time Warner Inc., PepsiCo) lead in trying to gain Black consumer attention.
I say all this because I realize that for every news media image and story that denigrates or diminishes African Americans, the fact remains that this nation cannot survive without us. Just as was true during the time of Slavery, African Americans are the unsung backbone of the nation. Our buying power is so great that its loss would lead to financial ruin for the entire nation, in a manner that matches and/or exceeds every aspect of the current mortgage/credit crisis.
So this year when you go out to shop (or stay in and online) for your Christmas/holiday gifts, if you are Black, remember this when the guards and employees watch your every move. They need you, and if they could do it they would thank you. Because without us, they would be out of work.
**Several fact were complied from Package Facts and Magazine.org **
Auto bailout - a sign of bad government
Written by Michael Vass
I just love the way that Congress is trying to look tough these days. An auto industry bailout? Hold on, we need details. Right.
Come on, this is the same group of people that handed $700 billion to Secretary Paulson without a plan. It was the same group of people that fell asleep when Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac were in trouble (someone wake up Barney Frank). And it was these very same people that gave away $25 billion to the auto industry about a month ago.
Does anyone seriously believe that they won’t bailout the auto industry, and receive neither repayment terms, nor assurances of industry improvement. They couldn’t even create a bailout for the financial industry that could prevent Paulson from moving the money around however he chooses, and that was a concern of House Republicans from the start. With even more Democrats in Congress, and the continued misleadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is a better outcome likely?
I’m reminded of a quote from Ben Franklin I believe.
“Doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.”
I apologize to Franklin is I got the quote wrong. But the point stands. And it will stay in place until the mid-term elections in 2010. Won’t the damage be interesting to see then.
The fact is that the U.S. automakers need to fail. Let several go bankrupt. It won’t be the end of the world. It will actually be the best thing that could happen.
When large companies fail a couple of things always happens. Several smart businessmen rummage through the wreckage and find bits that they can create new companies with. Those new companies will in part of the gap the old company had, but mismanaged. That spurs growth as a new corporation grows in that niche.
Also the old behemoth of a company slims down. Much of the old baggage is discarded, and the company refocuses on whatever they do best. Renewed energy flows and the company normally creates profits the old company could never do.
This is all good for the economy, though the jolt during the process is unpleasant. But it creates a stronger economy than the one existing before it. And more people are employed after these events than before.
The worst aspect of the auto bailout is the fact that it will be followed by an airlines bailout, and a retail bailout, and probably another financial markets bailout. The Government has made a precedent of stepping into the markets and private industry, because they are afraid of the pain. And in each case it has proven one thing. The Government has no idea what it is doing.
The more socialized things become the more the Government is compelled to step in. The more money is thrown around to avoid feeling bad, the worse everyone feels. Because the Government is incapable of fixing anything, nor can they regulate bad decisions out of business. And they shouldn’t. Bad decisions are normal business and are resolved in the marketplace over time.
Only in America is the concept of perfect markets feasible. It’s stupid and regrettable. But it also seems inevitable. Were that not so, the auto industry execs would never have taken separate corporate jets to fly to D.C. and speak with Congress. They did it because they know they will get the money.
I stated that the Dow Jones will hit 7600 in 2009. But if Congress throw more money at the problems in the markets, and involves more politicians that sleep when they should be watchful (Frank and Chris Dodd) I could be very wrong to the upside.
Just in time for the holiday’s
Written by Michael Vass
M V Consulting, Inc. has been busy over the last year seeking out artists and graphic designers that can capture the essence of the slogans and ideas emblazoned on the clothing and goods sold at the company’s online store. To that end the company is pleased to present the first in a new line of T-shirts, hoodies, maternity wear, sweats, mugs, mousepads, tile coasters, cooking aprons, teddy bears and more.
The Wanna Ride line of clothing and goods are the first line from HB Designs made exclusively for M V Consulting, Inc. This line exemplifies the sexy, flirty, vibrant nature of many of the ladies that are visitors to the sites of the company. 
There is no doubt that while wearing this attention will be gained, and you will stand out in any crowd.
And the company has not forgotten about the men out there.
We have several calendars, keepsake boxes, posters, hats, Flip MinoHD, thongs, throw pillows and more that you can purchase for that special lady (or yourself) as a gift this holiday season.
M V Consulting, Inc. sees no colors and as such we offer a version featuring Black, Latina, and White women.
And shortly we will be including another line featuring men as well – we think of you everyone.
So please do let us know what you think of the new product line. Visit our online store and check out what’s available. And purchase as much as you want.
If you have specific ideas, or improvements we can make, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc.
info@vassconsult.com
** Several items available in different colors. All items above are front or back only designs for clothing. Plus sizes are also available at the online store. **
First Bank of Delaware - credit card panic during credit crisis
Written by Michael Vass
When the major media, pundits, and Wall Street scream about how the mortgage crisis will cause liquidity to dry up and hurt the average citizen, I doubt most thought it might affect them as I just had it affect me.
It’s not that the value of my house has gone down. I’m not in default or danger of default on my mortgage. My business is functioning well and my bills are all paid. But I did run into a problem just this weekend. And it was completely unexpected. And it is directly tied to the credit crunch.
One of my credit cards is Tribute MasterCard. Not a huge name in the credit card market, but just a small card I use for minor purchases. I’ve had a card with them for 2 years. In that time they never increased my credit limit, but they did increase the annual fee.
Now I will tell you a bit about me personally. My business has been going for over 5 years now. My credit rating is excellent, the only debt I have is my home and my credit cards (I have 3). None of my credit cards has been maxed out in the last 4 years at least. I have missed no payments, and had 1 late payment in that time (5 days late to be exact).
I say that so you understand my surprise this weekend. I had car trouble, which I discussed in a different post, and wanted to use this card to handle the situation until I could get home and evaluate which account I wanted to use to pay off the situation. I found out that this card was dead. So I used a separate card and followed up the situation today.
I called the company, and the joy I found as I had no credit, but I did have a balance from use of the card last month. When I got a human on the line, I had the joy of speaking to someone in India. Her English was good, which is not as common as you might think, and she could not say anything more than I no longer was a wanted customer of the company. Which shocked and angered me.
The exact reason as I was told was that I have made a late payment. Not missed a payment, not overdue. I was exactly 5 days late in getting my monthly payment out to the company, a month ago. And that was the only problem that the company has ever had with my account.
Now I have to imagine that things must be pretty bad over at the First Bank of Delaware, which issued the card on behalf of MasterCard International. If I had an account at that bank I would be checking to see how my money was. If I was invested in that bank I’d be calling my broker and the bank to find out how their loan reserves are doing. Because it sounds like they are on the verge of collapsing.
When a credit card company is willing to drop a long-term client, of solid standing, because they have 1 payment that was 5 days late there is a problem. That problem is not me.
I am now rather scared. The fact that a credit card company is that terrified of an open balance that has never been over a couple of hundred dollars in an account that has spent 75% of its activity paid off in 30 days every month troubles me. It means that if even people with excellent credit, and significant histories with a financial company are being shoved to the wayside, there are banks with massive problems out there still.
Now this is no real problem for me. I have 2 other credit cards and I have enough cash to handle my needs. But the fact that this can occur means that I fear what might happen if another card were paid a day late. Or my mortgage. Again I’m not saying not paid, just late.
The financials are in paranoia, if this is any indication. And that paranoia is reaching the smaller companies, which I generally prefer since they are less prone to the risks that large multi-nationals will take to prop up quarterly reports for analysts. This paranoia will not resolve itself in a week or 2. This is something that will take months to work out.
And I can only guess at the repercussions over the holiday season, especially to those with less than perfect credit. Late paying off the Thanksgiving dinner, say goodbye to Christmas shopping. Took a client out to dinner and put the payment in the mail after midnight, so much for that business account. Your mail man was lazy and didn’t pick up your mail as usual, don’t ever have your car breakdown, on a weekend, on a highway in the middle of nowhere.
Suffice to say that I am displeased with the service at Tribute MasterCard and the First Bank of Delaware. I’m sure that no longer doing business with them will only prevent a future problem with them for me. This is a benefit, and there are several dozen other companies looking to provide me cards every week, so the net impact of having them as one of my extra credit cards is negligible.
But if you have a credit card from First Bank of Delaware, or Tribute MasterCard, I’d advise you to switch the account.
And if anyone at First Bank of Delaware would like to discuss this matter on the record I’d be happy to provide my readers with the full interview and transcript.
Are tech stocks worth buying now?
Written by Michael Vass
Lately every pundit and expert discussing the market of late has spoken about the financial companies. There is of course good reason for this but the really smart investors are looking in place that the general populace are not, for the next rally that will inevitably come to pass.
Following that line of reasoning I have written about how I found gold and coal to be solid buys. I also have stated that I think some financials are the best buys in the market. But I have to admit I got caught up in all the emotion and forgot to look at the tech market as well.
Now I realize that back in August I was discussing how technology stocks should not be limited to just companies that are directly tied to a PC or Mac. And my reasoning was sound , since technology is more than a computer and it’s funtioning. But if we were to look at the tech stocks that focus on computers what might be said?
Well there is eBay. This company might be the best buy on the market right now for this sector. Without having stores and storage facitlies overhead costs are always low. Since the purpose of the company is to facilitate trades interest rates are not a primary focus on their ability to do business.
Actually when you think about it, a messed up economy should mean good business for this company. As people worry about keeping jobs, and if they will have to take a pay cut or have reduced hours, the holiday season that is the 4th quarter is coming to bear. And kids love to see gifts on Christmas or Haunakah, because the economy means nothing to them. And parents love to see their kids happy.
So would you rather go out in the cold, spend money on gas (which is still high considering how much crude oil has gone down), and fight crowds to pay top dollar for the latest whiz-bang must have, or might you look for a refurbished version of that same item. Or perhaps a more traditional item? Or a nice gift for you spouse and/or significant other. Especially if that item costs less than in a retail store.
This is why eBay has had increased sale each 4th quarter for years. I really think this will do well as other brick and mortar store have a horrendous quarter.
What else might be interesting? Wll according to Toan Tran, an associate director of research at Morningstar in Chicago
Of course valuations are based on business and the rationality of the markets. Neither of which are good now. Still of the big names I would believe that Microsoft is a solid choice.
Microsoft has lots of cash on hand, which eases their need for credit in the near-term. They are a highly diversified company. And they provide a product (though often buggy) that is needed for most people to operate their computers with ease. Being the near monopoly they are has its advantages at times.
I also like Netflix. It’s a simple business model, basically renting movies. It’s a huge industry and the more people can’t spend money outside their home the more they want to be entertained in their home. So there is a stability there, if not a reason to expect increased sales. If jobs are sketchy, and especially if gas prices stay at present levels or go up, people want to be in their homes and save money. Since a trip to and from the movie theater can cost as much as $30 per person, a Netflix movie is a wonderful alternative.
Now these examples are not perfect. The credit crisis and the mortgage bailout will hit them hard like any other company. And the general malaise of the stock market will infect their prices as well. But looking at the long-term they will be fine I think.
These companies and others like them will be able to adjust more rapidly than traditional companies. They have goods and services that people need and/or want no matter how the economy is doing. Their costs are manageable and their structures have survived the internet crash so we have reason to believe that they can survive this.
The big question is when to purchase them, or any stock. That is the hard question. I am an old stockbroker, so I like to buy when the market is in a panic (check), there are big problems on the horizon (check), and after bad news.
The bad news will be 3rd quarter earnings which are about to be released. You can safely bet that the financial will all report painfully bad losses and missed expectations. So will several other major companies that rely on credit for their operations. So another sell-off should be expected. Add to that the likelihood of a President (if Obama is elected) that plans to increase corporate taxes by 10% while the economy is reeling, and the increase in inflation from the sudden federal rate cut today.
Put that all together and I look for the last 2 weeks or so of October through middle of November as a buying period. I expect that the market will pick up a bit in that time, so properly picked companies should establish new floors and trade from there.
All of this does assume that Europe and the rest of the world does not fall into a complete depression. And even a steep recession might alter things a bit. But the basic logic still works.
So do your homework, pay attention, and look where everyone is not looking yet. In every down market there are opportunities – you just have to work at it.
Senator Obama speaks as financials fail
Written by Michael Vass
Today the economy is the big issue in the Presidential race. That’s not to say that the Presidential candidates weren’t paying attention to that before, it’s just that they are panicking to look strong now.
Recently Senator Obama has been attacking Senator McCain about his positions on the economy, specifically that McCain stated the economy was ok. Senator Obama now states that he will reform regulation. He still maintains his desire to increase taxes for an undeclared amount of those Americans NOT receiving a paycheck but making them.
Well isn’t that nice. It’s very emotional polispeak, but it’s not worth much.
First consider that the real problem in the economy was created during a Democratic Presidency. The Clinton Presidency. The problems today are just the continuation of the internet bubble, which President Clinton allowed to happen. President Bush failed to resolve the issues, true, but the Twin Tower attacks altered the viewpoint.
In trying to cushion the pain of the internet bubble bursting, both Administrations, created the real estate bubble. Like all bubbles it too burst, but because most companies had not fully recovered from the first crash they took further damage now – especially in the financial markets.
Every time the Government steps in to bailout the stock markets, the worse they make the situation. Bailing out homeowners that made stupid purchases, without consideration of the potential consequences, hurts the economy. Regulation does not prevent dumb decisions, but politicians would like you to think so.
Banks fail every year, as to hundreds if not thousands of businesses and home loans. That in a good economy as well as bad. But this looks worse so people are more scared now than then.
But Senator Obama is essentially promising to go to the companies that are hurt and increase their taxes. He wants to add to the burden they have now. And that is supposed to employ more Americans, and provide more money to them. Add to that the fact he wants to put more people into the process.
Adding regulation means more people involved. These people work for an employer that cannot balance its books, and cannot efficiently manage any aspect of what it does. And has done so for decades. Were the Government a business it would have been bankrupt before I made it out of elementary school. And Obama wants to add to that.
That is not to say that some don’t laws need to be changed. But America is not falling apart, like some would want you to believe. 90% of mortgages are being paid. Most businesses are running normally. 95% of workers are getting paid just like they did last week, or a year ago.
Right now the Dow Jones is down (2:30pm). That’s because the Fed failed to lower interest rates. Because the Government failed to interfere with the markets, as it consistently has, as expected investors are upset. Such is life in an industry that ebbs and flows on a minute by minute basis everyday.
But if the Government bailed out the banks, and lowered interest rates, and bailed out homeowners, would that be better?
If Senator Obama had his way, all the above would happen. And taxes for corporations, investors, and the AVERAGE American would all go higher. So how would that help anything? More people would be mucking up the markets, the debt would go higher, and you would have less money to pay your bills with.
Seriously people, listen to more than the well-time polispeak. View everything in the context it is presented in. Remember everything that the candidates have said in the past. The economy is not great, but it’s not the Depression either.
Bill O’Reilly interview with Senator Obama - part 2 analysis
Written by Michael Vass
Well the questions between Bill O’Reilly and Senator Obama on the economy was interesting. And aggressive.
First are the facts. The economy grew during President Bush. The average wage increased for Americans $400 to $500 dollars, that’s on top of the $2000 it grew under President Clinton. And the Federal Government increased revenues by 20% under President Bush. Spending by President Bush has been outrageous though, and wasteful.
Now if you want to see what I think of the increases on the corporate tax structure just check out my previous post [Democratic tax plans: a look from reality]
A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.
Senator Obama clearly states that he will be increasing taxes on investments to at least 25%, which is massive. It means that to make a decent return on an investment – say the historical 11% that most mutual funds have made per year – you in fact have to make a 36% profit to get the return, which most stocks never make unless you are in the middle of the internet bubble. That is a fact I can attest to from my experience as a successful stock broker.
So to make attactive profits for inestors, companies will be forced to make changes. As I have stated in the abovementioned post, that means that since virtually all costs are fixed except employees they will absorb the hit as will consumers.
Also note that Senator Obama restates a previously stated comment. He states that 95% of Americans will benefit from his tax plan. That is a lie. He has clearly and repeatedly stated that 95% of American that RECEIVE A PAYCHECK will benefit from his tax plan. Business owners are not included in his savings, no matter the size of their business.
Bill O’Reilly also failed to mention that Senator Obama, along with his Vice President, already voted to effectively increase the taxes of all Americans making $31,850 or more this year. That’s a 3% tax increase on roughly 95% of Americans.
Now in a quick statement Senator Obama mentioned China
“…[the debt has] gone up $4 trillion dollars, that a credit card we’re taking out on our kids from the bank of China, that they’re goning to have to pay back…”
While I too have no love of foreign investment levels that currently exist I have a problem with what is being implied. Does Senator Obama plan to limit who can invest in American companies and banks? Because in a free economy you can’t stop anyone from investing.
In addition, I am unaware of English, French, or German companies, individuals, or nations stepping up and offering to make the investments in America that the Chinese and Saudi Arabians has offered. So if we are to have these investments and no friendly countries are offering anything, what are we to do?
The counter position – which is never being mentioned – means that we refuse the investments of these nations, or limit them. That also means that several of our banks, this year, would have been short on average $5 billion each at least. That means that at least 2 major money center banks would have failed this year. Without that foreign money the economy would have crashed as the dollar got crushed and inflation flew thru the roof because banks would have caused a domino effect that would easily have plunged the nation into a depression.
I have yet to hear an answer that addresses the problems the counter position creates. Perhaps it’s because there is no answer, or they realize that most Americans are unfamiliar with stock market intricacies to ask this question. But I do.
So does this mean that Senator Obama would rather have CitiGroup, and Lehman, and other banks/brokerages fail than accept the billions of dollars foreign investors offer – even is only certain countries are willing to give us the money and none of them are close friends? Is Senator Obama saying that he is willing to plunge America into a Depression that will obviously not help retirees, workers, the economy, and ultimately the world?
Tonight is part 3. Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and other questions on character that are sure to be the high point of the interview.
Democratic tax plans: a look from reality
Written by Michael Vass
Let’s talk taxes and business. It’s one of the key items in the campaigns of each of the Presidential candidates, and I know its something average Americans are concerned about.
Now let me state something up front. I am a Republican, business owner, Black Puerto Rican, 40 year old man. I am voting for the McCain – Palin ticket. So if you cannot accept any of those thoughts, click away now.
I want to examine one of the tax plans that has gotten huge support and acclaim – that of Senator Obama. In reality this is a tax plan that the Democratic Party has always pushed for most of my life. It can be summed up in the following:
- Tax the rich
- Tax business
- Tax the stock market
Let me explain in simple terms why this is a stupid plan.
Assume that Senator Obama wins the election. And a Democratic Congress remains in force. And their tax plans are enacted.
First the President Bush tax cuts will be reversed. Based on the votes from earlier this year that would mean that every American making $31,850 or more would have a 3% tax increase.
Now add to this the thought that business taxes increase 10%. And payroll tax increases 3%. And short-term and long-term tax on investments increases 10%. And lastly the minimum wage is increased to say $9.
Middle and low income Americans should rejoice, right? The rich are now paying for everything like some believe they should. The economy will improve and everyone will get nationalized (meaning standardized) healthcare.
So if you were at 28% tax, you are bumped up to 31%, but you are making more money now so it’s ok? Well in a vacuum yes. But in the real world you are out of your mind.
As a business owner I have to pay corporate taxes as well as my personal taxes. So I am faced with a situation where my raw materials cost more, my employees cost more, and I pay more in taxes at every turn.
If I had a business that had revenues of $100,000, and 2 part-time employees, and paid myself a salary here is the rough scenario.
Let’s say that my cost of goods is only 10%, research 3%, location 15%, energy use 15%, corporate taxes are 39% and employees get $7/hr. This is before the tax increase and minimum pay jump. They become 49% and $9 respectively. So if my employees cost $9/hr @ 20 hours a week each they are a minimum of 17% not including tax for them. For simple math let’s just call it 20%.
That’s a total of 112%. Without assuming my cost of goods from other businesses in the same position have increased, or if the price of energy increases (which it has for every year since 1972), I am in debt 12%, or in this example $12,000.
That says nothing of paying myself anything. Add in a modest living of $35,000 for owning the business and you get even more debt – but let’s say that I just have it at no cost to the business – though I am paying at least 31% on that money (including the end of the Bush tax cuts) as well.
So I am now in debt. Where can I cut cost? Raw goods and energy are essentially fixed to me. Location is fixed. Taxes are fixed. I could increase prices of my finished goods or services, but there is no guarantee that consumers will pay the higher price. Plus I still have to pay everything first to even test if consumers will pay a higher price.
So a smart plan is to increase my sale price by no more than 5% - small enough to test if the new price range will work, and most won’t notice it. Still I am short the upfront money to get the goods. The only variable left is to cut what I can affect.
I would need to cut either the number of employees and/or their hours until I can bring costs to just even (and probably take a pay cut). At that point I can see if I can make a profit with the price increase.
Now this scenario is overly simplified, given. [A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.] But the theory is sound. So please explain to me where the higher taxes benefit the 95% of people that receive a paycheck? They will get more money, but fewer of them will be working – and working less hours with higher expectations at that.
The pressure to make a profit increases exponentially if that company has stock and needs to make a profit for investors. And higher profits than normal since they have to make up for the loss incurred from taxing investments.
People that have investments so they can retire are now hurt as they either have to wait longer to retire, or must lower their quality of life. I don’t mean the CEO’s on television quality of life, I mean papa Joe who built up positions in GE so he could sell it over time to make up the difference between SSI (which will be going bankrupt shortly) and his pension that was cut after the company lost it’s ass in the internet bubble crash.
Feeling cheerful? Taxing the rich sound good still?
Add in the cost of higher raw goods since those companies have to make more money too. Add in the higher cost of energy – either because of higher oil prices or the cost of creating and converting to alternative energy. Remember ethanol is only ¾ as efficient as gasoline, so you will need more of it and thus spend more money for the same usage. Plus building solar plants, wind power generators, research and development of biomass, geothermal, and the rest.
And these costs go up every year.
And don’t even mention paying for healthcare, which employers have to cover.
So someone please explain to me how the Democrats plan to raise taxes will benefit anyone. Like I said earlier, it looks great in a vacuum but I own a business in the real world and it doesn’t look so good there.
Taxes: the real Presidential candidate issue
Written by Michael Vass
With all the attention being place on oil and energy in the past few days I thought I’d take another look at taxes. One of the least popular issues that every Presidential race focuses on. And consistently the public has the same request, lower taxes.
For 2008, the ‘election of change’ [a dumb concept considering that is a fact], we have 2 very explicit views. I say explicit, but if you don’t listen carefully or check any other details you may be distracted of confused by the polispeak that each candidate employs. So I want to take a moment, before the rhetoric switches back after the energy issue stops catching headlines, to look at their stances clearly (as found at The Tax Foundation).
Deferring to experience I will start with Senator McCain.
Originally opposed to the President Bush tax cuts, Senator McCain now is in support of this tax plan. He also favors cutting corporate taxes by 10%. For those that suffer from estate taxes he plans to implement a move to only 15% tax on estates over $10 million. He wants to remove the alternative minimum tax, which affects many middle-class families which it was not intended to tax, and he is strongly against any increase in taxes related to Social Security.
Now for Senator Obama.
While he has already voted to increase taxes for anyone making $31,850 he has publicly stated that he will only repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of the nation. How such a law could be enacted is unknown, and considering that proposals and campaign promises of a similar nature have never occurred his repeals may include more people. He has also promised to eliminate taxes for all seniors that make less than $50,000. When it comes to corporations Senator Obama has stated he will “close loopholes”, which means whatever you wish it to. He has no expressed plan for estate taxes or the Minimum Alternative Tax, presumably leaving them both in place. But he does have a defined plan for the Social Security tax, which he plans to increase – directly coming from wages. There may be an exemption for those above $102,000 but it isn’t clear.
Senator Obama also has several other plans related to taxes that Senator McCain has no comparable for. Senator Obama will create several ‘credits’ for various Americans. One credit will apply to those that work and make over $8,100 – the credit will be for $500 or $1,000 for families. He would also create a 10% credit for all homeowners with a mortgage. This mortgage owner credit would amount to about $500. There would also be an earned income credit for those making minimum wage and working full-time for $555, if children are being supported “responsibly” [how and who determines that?] then another $1,110 is available. For those in college up to $4,000 can be forgiven. Lastly Senator Obama wants the IRS to issue tax forms that are partially pre-filled to reduce the time in filling out the forms.
Now I’m sure both plans have their appeal points, and many with children like the comments by Senator Obama. But let’s look at this in total.
Senator Obama has already voted to increase taxes of most Americans 3%, which he publicly stated he would not do. Because of that I feel every other statement about taxes he has made is in question. In addition every attempt to isolate any singular group of Americans to pay higher taxes has failed. Inevitably Americans not expected to be paying higher taxes do so.
I agree with the concept of excluding taxes for senior citizens that are making enough money to survive on their own. I do not agree on the fixed price or the cap. While $50,000 may sound comfortable today, not long ago $30,000 sounded the same. Any provision that does not take into account the increase of cost of living, nor the cost of medications (which older Americans have higher budgets on disproportionately) fails those it is meant to help.
While spouting polispeak about corporations and their earnings is a winning strategy with unions and newspaper headlines, it is not an effective tax plan. There are some loopholes in the corporate tax code that should be removed, but the real boost to the economy is decreasing tax rates. This allows businesses to increase the number of people employed, or raise their pay, or fund research, or expand to increase scales of economy. Whichever is done the economy for the nation receives more revenues in multiple areas that were stagnant prior. Raising corporate taxes has the opposite effect.
Estate taxes are a special situation that most Americans don’t fall under. Even so, for those that do have to deal with these taxes, they are huge. While most like to point out the multi-million dollar estates, those with far less pay the same tax now. Again this limits gaining revenues on these funds from other sources that could stimulate the economy. But I don’t have a strong opinion on this point.
Social Security is commonly called the “third rail of politics” and it is aptly named. Older voters are sensitive to anything that might affect their money. Considering that most voters are older, and this number is about to swell as baby-boomers age, this is an issue that none want to be on the wrong side of. Then again, younger voters have little interest in funding a program that they in all likelihood will never receive a dime from. SSI is a flawed program that has never worked exactly as planned. Increasing money by raising taxes on those that can’t afford it does little to help anyone beyond actually pushing its problems onto either another administration or generation. Senator Obama’s plan sounds exactly like that.
Senator Obama’s plan for college students sounds eerily like the short-lived plan proposed from then-potential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton. This plan forgives money instead of providing it though. A major question is this though, who will pay the $28.8 billion that this plan would absolve each year. [That assumes that only 7.2 million Americans go to college - and would this include those who take college courses online?] The money from this would have to come from somewhere, which means higher taxes.
I like a 10% credit for mortgages, as I will soon own a home. But in reality I don’t need it. My home purchase is based on the fact that I can well afford the mortgage, and that it is a fixed rate. Those that prepare properly for a home purchase have no need of a credit. Those that do not will not be saved by what would amount to maybe 2 months payment on their obligation. If this plan were less polispeak, it would be designed to help stimulate the economy – especially since 96% of all mortgage holders are paying on-time.
I can’t think of anything more to ask about a credit for those that have children [specifically it seems targeted to fathers paying child support] than who and what criteria equate to responsible. How would this be enforced. Under it’s current wording this implies that the Government would be involved actively in raising every child in America, under arbitrary and politically motivated rules. And what happens if the Government claims you are not being responsible? Do they take the children from the parents, or incarcerate them, publicly ostracize them or penalize them in some other way? Considering that the Government can’t balance a checkbook or check out foods for potentially deadly diseases I don’t trust their opinion on what is “responsible” in child rearing.
And lastly the IRS tax forms. It’s a nice polispeak rabble rouser. It gets headlines. It sounds great, until you think about it. How long do you think it will take to mail out tens of millions of printed tax forms? How will those who have never filed a tax form prior file? How much will this cost to be made? Especially since each and every form will be individual so scale of economies will never take place (never mind the fact that it would likely cost more each and every year – like stamps).
And perhaps most importantly, how will the Government ensure that every document is sent out to the proper person. Because if even one were to be mishandled, or one employee were paid off, identity theft would be rampant. Some would counter that the government send out documents now though no numbers exist on how many are improperly delivered. But the counter would accurately be that the Government is inefficient in every department, what would cause the IRS to suddenly become so?
So in honestly reviewing the tax positions of Senator Obama and Senator McCain, on balance I see McCain with better plans and more effective for the nation. You may not agree, and if so I’d love to hear where I got it wrong. And if I got it right let me know. [please remember I’m not an economist so don’t get too technical on me.]
How To Protect Your Brand with a Trademark
I recently received some of the best business advice I ever received and at least one person out there is going to thank me for it. It’s related to trademarks and if you intend to build a brand, it’s really necessary to protect your trademark.
Many of us create a business idea but for some reason, we don’t create the business immediately because of a lack of funding or current job and business obligations.
If you’re in this position, file an Intent to Use application with the USPTO. This application will put you in a priority position, even better than someone who is actually using the trademark if your Intent to Use application was filed before:
1. Either the other person’s first use or first commerce date.
2. Before the other person’s Intent to Use application.
You can file extensions for up to 36 months with the USPTO and I highly advise to stay on top of all correspondence with the USPTO. With an Intent to Use application, you will be protecting your mark for 36 months and then you need to prove use.
Please note that when filing this application, you still need to file a mark that can be registered and you are not given a less vigorous examination just because you are not using it.
