Happy Holidays!

I wrote up this blog post for the company blog I manage and sent out the link in our Christmas e-mail card.

Check it out, 10 Holiday Video Clips to Get You in the Mood.

My Dad is Mr. Letter to the Editor

There's something revolutionary in writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

Last quarter, I took History of American Journalism and heard lecture upon lecture on how the opinion pages of newspapers thrived as dialogue between editorial boards and community members.

In the end, this is what will probably save newspapers through the convenience of commenting on Web editions and on blogs. Heck, I get that same feeling when writing this blog that I'm sure revolutionists got in the early years of the American press and civil right activists got during the time of the black press.

Sometimes I feel like James Franklin only with a computer. It doesn't bother me if I get zero hits, just being out hear makes me think I'm contributing to a necessary public forum.

My dad, who has recently embraced the digital replacement form of letter to the editor in the company blog I manage, loves to write into local papers.

Here's his latest gem with a crafty pull quote, pasted from The Youngstown Vindicator's site.

This ran in print on Sunday Dec. 21. I'll just copy paste it for your reading pleasure.

EDITOR:

This time last year Johnson Rubber in Middlefield filed for bankruptcy. The company’s roots went back to 1895, predating GM. Their business was 70 percent auto related and much of their workforce came from the Trumbull County area. About 500 employees lost their jobs. Creditors lost millions, including my company. It was my decision, my risk, and ultimately my bad.

Rightly or wrongly nobody much cared about these people. Where was Governor Ted, Senator George, or Timmy Ryan? I don’t recall any editorial outrage or sympathy from the local talking radioheads. Not even a peep from Jim Graham.

Those against the loan are called names for being anti-labor. Personally, I’m anti-stupid.

Now with the shoe on the other foot we’re all supposed to rally around the GM/UAW flagpole. This combo has managed to lose $15 billion in the past two years or so. Now they want the taxpayers to give them a “loan” not supported with collateral or any guarantee that it will be paid back. Those against the loan are called names for being anti-labor. Personally, I’m anti-stupid. Some point to the financial industry bailout as precedent yet fail to see the difference. The financial mess was caused by our government and all those that run it. Of course they are going to cover their rears.

We have become a country that rewards incompetence. Our system re-elects leaders that don’t lead. We bail out the losers and tax the winners. Some motivation.

The fact is that GM has been bankrupt in all but name for years. The solutions to their problems need to come from within. Henry Ford knew he had to make a car people could afford to survive. My guess is that if GM/UAW and the retirees get down to it and made a $10,000 Cobalt you’d have these shifts humming along 24/7. And maybe some of the forgotten Johnson Rubber people could land a job.

TIMOTHY RYAN

Newton Falls

Come On Stewart, Do Two Wrongs Make A Right?

I love the Daily Show and will continue to watch it no matter what Jon Stewart says or does.

If he goes out and says he is pro-Cancer, it won't change my opinion that he's funny because the two would be completely unrelated.

But he said something stupid last night and I feel the need to comment. Here's the clip:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Autoerotic Explanation

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

He's not the first to make the argument that we should bailout Detroit because we bailed out Wall Street. But he's probably the one you were most likely to listen to (and I don't blame you for that).

Sure, GM's proposal sounds good. All three CEO's pledged to cut their salaries to $1 per year. They'll be in the poor house for sure after that, according to Slate's new baby The Big Money.

I posted earlier that the UAW concessions are a step towards this bailout working.

But I posted before digesting the details.

According to a New York Times article I also linked to two paragraphs ago, the Big Three spend an average of $78/hour per employee when you consider all the benefits.

Plus, retired workers get a lot of those same health care benefits, even though they don't work.

(Quick note off topic: In my opinion, I don't think the government should control retirement planning at all. I think we should be given our full pay check and deal with planning ourselves. That means give me back social security and give me what my employer puts into everything and let me manage my own money.)

Sure, the salary for an auto worker is only an average of around $30 an hour. But the issue is what it costs the employer. (After four years of college, I won't make anywhere close to that for years after I finish if I stay in journalism. Cue the violins and Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me A River")

WSJ.com's Evan Newmark broke down the GM plan brilliantly and I wish I would have just read this rather than everything else.

It took me a solid 15 minutes to track that post back down so enjoy this pull quote as well:

The U.S. car industry has been a credit junkie that now has to go cold turkey.

Which provides a good transition to my last link to a recent statement by Rep. Barney Frank (D, Mass.) who says an automotive bailout would negatively affect the credit crisis.

I'm a little upset that I can't find out how this would negatively affect the credit crisis, other than the obvious, if more people are unemployed then there will be less spending. (And we all know spending and racking up credit card bills is the answer rather than saving.)

But shouldn't bankruptcy be less expensive to the government than this bailout? Seriously, I'm not a bankruptcy expert so if I'm wrong, let me know.

To close, here's Bill O'Reilly giving it to Frank. I don't watch the O'Reilly factor and I think he's a little to Republican for my taste, but at least he's entertaining and a true economic conservative. Enjoy the clip:

Hookers And Adultery? I'm Still Listening

The following contents are comments to a recent story on Slate regarding the federal bailout written by former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

The first comments come from someone else and the second is mine. Then I'll paste the story. Enjoy.

Spitzer is an IDIOT
by Dean Scholes
12/04/2008, 8:44 AM #
Rate this topic Favorites Reply

Hey Slate, I've never visited your site before, nor did I read this article. I discovered your partnership with a criminal, an adulterer, a liar and a bully from another source and couldn't resist submitting this post.

I am a Republican who voted for Spitzer, and I am discusted with the S.O.B. for what he did with my vote and the millions of others who put faith in his promises and opinions. Screw you Spitzer, and you too Slate. Now neither one of you should be considered as reliable sources of credibilty.

Spitzer, you need to spend more time underneath the heaping, steaming dung pile you covered yourself with before sharing anything you have to say in a public forum. No one cares about you, or what you think, except you.

Dean Scholes

Angelica, New York

Re: Spitzer is an IDIOT
by Corey_Ryan
12/04/2008, 9:06 AM #
Delete Favorites Reply

Wow, what blatant ignorance to the topic at hand. So if someone is an adulterer, then you're just going to completely ignore them no matter what?

If someone came up with the cure for cancer, but he or she had an affair, even though the two topics are completely unrelated (cancer and sex), you wouldn't want that cure?

If you are a conservative, than you have to love Spitzer's commentary. I picked up on this story from The Cheat Sheet (pretty aptly named for a link to Spitzer, I suppose) and I'm glad I went to it. I'm going to share it on Facebook and comment on it in my blog.

Spitzer has the Wall Street credentials and illustrates a very good point.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR THESE HUGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO GET BIGGER!

Right here in Northeast Ohio, PNC received bailout money to purchase National City, making it a bigger, stronger bank. Spitzer points out that bigger and stronger was the problem in first place.

Reading and agreeing with Spitzer's article doesn't mean you are pro-adult[e]ry just as being friends with someone who has had an abortion doesn't make you pro-choice.

But ignoring a valid opinion just because something unrelated to the topic happened with the author puts you underneath the heaping dung pile.

--
the best policy
Too Big Not To Fail
We need to stop using the bailouts to rebuild gigantic financial institutions.
By Eliot Spitzer
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2008, at 5:59 PM ET

Last month, as the financial crisis and the government rescue plan dominated headlines, almost everyone overlooked a news item that could have enormous long-term impact: GE Capital announced the acquisition of five mid-size airplanes—with an option to buy 20 more—produced by CACC, a new, Chinese-government-sponsored airline manufacturer.

Why is that so significant? Two reasons: First, just as small steps signaled the Asian entry into our now essentially bankrupt auto sector 50 years ago, so the GE acquisition signals Asia's entry into one of our few remaining dominant manufacturing sectors. Boeing is still the world's leading commercial aviation company. CACC's emergence—and its particular advantage selling to Asian markets—means that Boeing now faces the rigors of an entirely new competitive playing field and that our commercial airplane sector is likely to suffer enormously over the coming decades.

But the second implication is even bigger. The CACC story highlights the risk that current bailouts—a remarkable $7.8 trillion in equity, loans, and guarantees so far—may merely perpetuate a fundamentally flawed status quo. So far, at least, we are simply rebuilding the same edifice that just collapsed. None of the investments has even begun to address the underlying structural problems that are causing economic power to shift away from the United States, sector by sector:

* Our trade deficit has ballooned from about $100 billion to more than $700 billion annually in the past decade, and our federal deficit now approaches $1 trillion. These twin deficits leave us at the mercy of foreign-capital inflows that may diminish as Asian nations, in particular, invest increasingly at home.
* Our household savings rate has been close to zero—and even negative in some years—not permitting the long-term capital accumulation required for the investments we need; China's savings rate, by comparison, is an astonishing 30 percent of household income.
* U.S. middle class income has stagnated over the past decade, while the middle class in China—granted, starting from a lower base—has seen its income growing at about 10 percent annually.
* Our intellectual advantage could soon turn into a new "third deficit," as hundreds of thousands of engineers are being created annually in China.
* We are realizing that the service sector—all the lawyers, investment bankers, advertising agencies, and accountants—follows its clients and wealth creation. This, not over-regulation, is the reason investment-banking activity has begun to migrate overseas.

The great irony is that our new place in the global economy is a direct consequence of our grand victory over the past 60 years. We have, indeed, converted virtually the entire world into one integrated capitalist economy, and we must now bear the brunt of serious and vigorous competition. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States was essentially the only nation with financial capital, intellectual capital, skilled labor, a growing middle class generating consumer demand, and a rule of law permitting safe investment. Now we are one of many nations with these critical advantages.

This long-term change frames the question we should be asking ourselves: What are we getting for the trillions of dollars in rescue funds? If we are merely extending a fatally flawed status quo, we should invest those dollars elsewhere. Nobody disputes that radical action was needed to forestall total collapse. But we are creating the significant systemic risk not just of rewarding imprudent behavior by private actors but of preventing, through bailouts and subsidies, the process of creative destruction that capitalism depends on.

A more sensible approach would focus not just on rescuing pre-existing financial institutions but, instead, on creating a structure for more contained and competitive ones. For years, we have accepted a theory of financial concentration—not only across all lines of previously differentiated sectors (insurance, commercial banking, investment banking, retail brokerage, etc.) but in terms of sheer size. The theory was that capital depth would permit the various entities, dubbed financial supermarkets, to compete and provide full service to customers while cross-marketing various products. That model has failed. The failure shows in gargantuan losses, bloated overhead, enormous inefficiencies, dramatic and outsized risk taken to generate returns large enough to justify the scale of the organizations, ethical abuses in cross-marketing in violation of fiduciary obligations, and now the need for major taxpayer-financed capital support for virtually every major financial institution.

But even more important, from a structural perspective, our dependence on entities of this size ensured that we would fall prey to a "too big to fail" argument in favor of bailouts.

Two responses are possible: One is to accept the need for gigantic financial institutions and the impossibility of failure—and hence the reality of explicit government guarantees, such as Fannie and Freddie now have—but then to regulate the entities so heavily that they essentially become extensions of the government. To do so could risk the nimbleness we want from economic actors.

The better policy is to return to an era of vibrant competition among multiple, smaller entities—none so essential to the entire structure that it is indispensable.

The concentration of power—political as well as economic—that resided in these few institutions has made it impossible so far for this crisis to be used as an evolutionary step in confronting the true economic issues before us. But imagine if instead of merging more and more banks together, we had broken them apart and forced them to compete in a genuine manner. Or, alternatively, imagine if we had never placed ourselves in a position in which so many institutions were too big to fail. The bailouts might have been unnecessary.

In that case, vast sums now being spent on rescue packages might have been available to increase the intellectual capabilities of the next generation, or to support basic research and development that could give us true competitive advantage, or to restructure our bloated health care sector, or to build the type of physical infrastructure we need to be competitive.

It is time we permitted the market to work: This means true competition with winners and losers; companies that disappear; shareholders and CEOs who can lose as well as win; and government investment in the long-range competitiveness of our nation, not in a failed business model of financial concentration and failed risk management that holds nobody accountable.

This point will be all too well driven home when the remaining investment bankers in New York board a CACC jet to fly to Washington to negotiate the terms of a government bailout of yet another U.S. financial institution that was deemed too big to fail.
Eliot Spitzer is the former governor of the state of New York.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2205995/

Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

Renegotiate With UAW And I May Be OK

So my dad recently engaged in a dialogue with a certain future professor of mine (he teaches a required course I need to take in the spring) after said professor wrote a Plain Dealer column (and apparently in the Dispatch as well) promoting the Detroit bailout.

That's my dad's thing, you see, reading newspapers and writing to them. He keeps his published Letters to the Editor tucked away in his room in the family basement like trophies. He loves to argue and to push the economic conservative agenda.

And he loves to attack unions.

He worked for U.S. Gypsum Steel back in the 80s and there was some sort of union action (I don't know if it was a strike/lockout or a threat of strike/lockout), but he once told me a crowd of union workers ended up at his house and threw paint at it.

The point of all that is not that my dad has a personal vendetta with unions. I mean to point out that he has had experience with unions from both sides (he worked labor in steel mills through college). He knows what he's talking about when he argues against them.

Because I can only attest a knowledge of the basic when it comes to labor unions (a group of employees of a certain occupation or industry who come together to collectively negotiate wages, benefits, etc.), I usually defer to him on such topics.

Plus, I am pretty much against anything that pins one group squarely against another unless it's sports or a superhero battle. (the Superman image came from here.)

One could argue that automotive industry is completely different from steel, but apparently the comparison can be easily made.

Now that steel has been reformed and broken up into smaller companies, we actually produce more of it. This .pdf from the American Iron and Steel Institute brings in the facts.

Notably, that document states that in 2006 we could produce one ton of steel per two man hours as opposed to one ton per 10.1 man hours in the 1980s.

So where am I going with all of this?

It's hard to argue against my dad ( or with Professor Suddes) because there is clearly a problem with the UAW's contract.

But I may be okay with some sort of Detroit bailout if the the automakers can negotiate with the UAW. This is what sparked the mid-day post, so here's the article from the Wall Street Journal pasted below.

I also embedded a video off WSJ.com because I'm curious what you think of their videos.

As for those who came hoping to read something of a lighter note, I apologize. I'm working on my Photoshop skills for a series of regular posts where I manipulate photos of America's finest. Currently I'm working on an image of GM CEO Richard Wagoner taking it from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, but it's taking me a minute.

Cheers!

Auto Union Open to Changes in Contract
DECEMBER 3, 2008, 3:48 P.M. ET
by Sharon Terlap
WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122832097499675993.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&

DETROIT -- The United Auto Workers will allow U.S. auto makers to delay payments into a massive health-care trust and suspend the controversial jobs bank program for laid-off workers, part of an effort to help Detroit's struggling auto makers secure emergency federal loans.

The UAW will modify the contracts reached last year with the Detroit Three to help cut costs as the companies try to convince Congress they can survive if given a federal bailout. Modification will require the UAW to assemble bargaining committees and commence negotiations with the companies.

"We're willing to take an extra step here," President Ron Gettelfinger said Wednesday following a meeting with union leadership. He said union leaders are able to suspend the jobs bank and push back payments to the health-care trust without renegotiating the labor contract. But further changes will require bargaining and a vote by UAW members.

"'Concessions," I used to cringe at that word. But now, why hide from it? That's what we did," Mr. Gettelfinger said.

His comments came one day after General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC submitted wide-ranging restructuring blueprints to Congress in the hopes of qualifying for a combined $34 billion in low-interest federal loans. GM and Chrysler say they both need money immediately to avoid collapse, while Ford says it would hope not to have to draw from any credit line.

Cutting Costs

The auto makers are hoping to negotiate concessions from the UAW to bring the cost structures of the Detroit Three more in line with those of foreign auto makers in the U.S.

The health-care trust, commonly referred to as VEBA, was supposed to begin paying benefits to retirees starting Jan. 1, 2010, and is considered a key component of the companies' efforts to reduce labor obligations. However, the auto makers are running short of liquidity and likely unable to come up with the billions of dollars needed to initially fund the trust.

U.S. auto makers are burning through cash at an alarming pace as auto sales in the U.S. and abroad plunge. On Tuesday, Ford reported a 30% decline in its U.S. sales in November versus the year-ago period, while GM and Chrysler each saw their sales drop more than 40%.

As for the jobs bank program, which provides many laid-off workers with most of their pay and benefits, Mr. Gettelfinger said the program has shrunk dramatically, but remains a "lightning rod" for critics of the domestic auto industry.

"Jobs bank has become a sound byte that people use to beat us up," he said. GM and Ford have reduced their jobs banks by nearly 80,000 workers in recent years. The Detroit Three auto makers currently have 3,500 workers in the jobs bank.

'Change With The Times'

Mr. Gettelfinger made the case that a failure of one of Detroit's auto makers would trigger a collapse of at least one of the other auto makers along with suppliers, auto dealers and other companies that depend on GM, Ford and Chrysler for business.

Auto makers made similar statements in the letters sent to Congress on Tuesday.

The UAW will drive that point with an ad campaign that asks for help for Main Street and reminds Congress that the auto industry is not the banking system, which just received a $700 billion federal bailout.

"If Wall Street can get help so should Main Street," one spot will say.

Mr. Gettelfinger also emphasized that the auto makers are presenting a detailed plan that promises to repay the loans. He also noted that other nations are being asked to extend support to their auto industries.

Hundreds of local UAW officials convened for Wednesday's meeting, which Mr. Gettelfinger described as an "unprecedented" gathering of officials representing workers from all three auto makers.

Several said they believe members would grudgingly support the concessions, though some said they planned to oppose further givebacks.

"We're in a fight for survival," said Doug Rice, president of UAW Local 122, representing Chrysler workers. "We're going to have to look at how we do things so we can live today to survive tomorrow."

Rory Gamble, a regional UAW director for Ford, said union leaders have to present a plan that's fair and appropriate for members.

"I'm pretty sure they'll accept that," he said. "You've got to change with the times," he added, noting that the union will look for guarantees down the road when the companies rebound.

GM shares were down 1% at $4.80 in mid-afternoon trading, while Ford shares were up 6.6% at $2.88. Chrysler, owned by investment group Cerberus, doesn't have publicly traded shares.

Write to Sharon Terlep at sharon.terlep@dowjones.com

Politics Make Good Conversation, If The Conversers Have A Buffer Zone

Has your family left yet?

By now, you should be home. Or maybe you never left, butUncle Benny who drinks too much just went back to Western Pennsylvania.

All the left over turkey is either gone or way too dry to consume (I recommend using some mustard to soften it up if you must finish it).

I had a quite dinner with the immediate family and our Kimmy Gibbler-like neighbor after a mid-day nap and a morning tackle football game. (the Gibbler link takes you to where I got the photo)

But the next day, I had a conversation with my mom that led me to an interesting hypothesis.

I don't know if it's because she doesn't get to talk about current events or politics with anyone, but she seems to relish in the opportunity to show off her strong Republican sentiments. And I think this is how most families are.

If you are the kind of family or group of friends that gets to see each other everyday, conversation tends to be limited to water cooler "Did you believe what Michael Scott did last night?" But what changes with those people you only see three times a year?

People take political ideology very seriously and we love to express our ideals whenever possible (this could be because it makes us feel knowledgeable or because we just inherently want to piss each other off, I don't know). When conflicting serious political ideals clash, people get angry. Therefore, we talk about politics only during holidays and scheduled get-togethers because of the buffer zone.

A buffer zone, as defined by Seinfeld, is the comfort zone between a child from his parents. The greater the buffer zone, the more comfort (Del Boca Vista to Manhattan being the ideal buffer zone). I think this applies to friends as well.

Remember that football game I mentioned earlier? My friends from high school and I play in a game every year. We've done this for seven years. The only time anyone mentioned Washington is when I have worn my Redskins Deon Sanders jersey for the game (here's where I got that photo).

Everyone started talking about Obama. I had to ask how other campuses reacted to the results.

It may be important to note that nothing got heated in this discussion, probably because we started playing football. And it was like 30 degrees outside.

I just know we grew up in different families and we go to different schools. Some of us care more about politics than others. If we would have been in a more suitable setting, someone's face would have gotten flushed with rage.

So the question that arises from my hypothesis is this. Why do we only want to piss off those close family and friends we take time to visit with on select special occasions?

After a weekend of watching my sister harass my mom about her weird dance moves that she performs miles away from traditional dance floors and my dad bringing up every embarrassing moment from my childhood (wouldn't you like to know), I realized something.

Pissing each other off is the foundation of family. Aren't you glad it's the holidays?

And They Said This Was Only Going To Be $700 Billion

Here's an interesting article I came across. The origin is noteworthy. Recently, I came across a Web site called The Daily Beast, I think because political satire extraordinaire Christopher Buckley writes there.

Anyway, they put together this section called The Cheat Sheet, which is a collection of the day's top news articles. I go there and to Buzzfeed for my news first when I sign online.

As for my two cents on the following article, it's like that episode of South Park. If you give the loch ness monster $3.50, he's going to keep coming back. Except instead of a giant cretaceous from the paleolithic era, we're talking about the government. Ain't life a bitch?

Here's a link to the story on latimes.com. Below I pasted the entire thing because I think the information is that important.

Economic rescue could cost $8.5 trillion
Heavy spending to battle the financial crisis is unlikely to abate soon. Analysts say next year's deficit could top $1 trillion.

By Jim Puzzanghera
November 30, 2008

Reporting from Washington -- With its decision last week to pump an additional $1 trillion into the financial crisis, the government eliminated any doubt that the nation is on a wartime footing in the battle to shore up the economy. The strategy now -- and in the coming Obama administration -- is essentially the win-at-any-cost approach previously adopted only to wage a major war.

And that means no hesitation in pledging to spend previously almost unimaginable sums of money and running up federal budget deficits on a scale not seen since World War II.

Indeed, analysts warn that the nation's next financial crisis could come from the staggering cost of battling the current one.

Just last week, new initiatives added $600 billion to lower mortgage rates, $200 billion to stimulate consumer loans and nearly $300 billion to steady Citigroup, the banking conglomerate. That pushed the potential long-term cost of the government's varied economic rescue initiatives, including direct loans and loan guarantees, to an estimated total of $8.5 trillion -- half of the entire economic output of the U.S. this year.

Nor has the cash register stopped ringing. President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are expected to enact a stimulus package of $500 billion to $700 billion soon after he takes office in January.

The spending already has had a dramatic effect on the federal budget deficit, which soared to a record $455 billion last year and began the 2009 fiscal year with an amazing $237-billion deficit for October alone. Analysts say next year's budget deficit could easily bust the $1-trillion barrier.

"I didn't think we'd see that for a long time," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "There's a huge risk of another economic crisis, a debt crisis, once we get on the other side of this one."

But the Bush administration and the economic team that Obama is rapidly assembling like a war Cabinet are vowing to spend whatever it takes to avoid a depression; they'll worry about the effect later.

"I don't think that there's any way of denying the fact that my first priority and my first job is to get us on the path of economic recovery, to create 2.5 million jobs, to provide relief to middle-class families," Obama told reporters last week.

"But as soon as the recovery is well underway, then we've got to set up a long-term plan to reduce the structural deficit and make sure that we're not leaving a mountain of debt for the next generation."

The mountain is already there, and rising faster than at any time since the 1940s, when the United States was fighting a global war.

Analysts say the current flood of red ink calls into question Obama's ability to launch programs such as middle-class tax cuts and a healthcare overhaul. In 1993, a deficit only a third the size of next year's projected $1 trillion prompted President Clinton to abandoned his campaign pledges of tax cuts.

Once the financial crisis eases, higher interest rates and soaring inflation will be risks. If they materialize, they could dramatically increase the government's borrowing costs to meet its annual debt payments. For consumers, borrowing could become more expensive even as the price of everyday items rise, holding back economic growth.

"We could have a super sub-prime crisis associated with the meltdown of the federal government," warned David Walker, president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former head of the Government Accountability Office.

But even deficit hawks such as Walker acknowledge that the immediate crisis is priority No. 1. Just as with World War II, the government can worry about paying the bills once the enemy is defeated.

"You just throw everything you have at the problem to try to fix it as quickly as you can," said David Stowell, a finance professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. "We're mortgaging our future to a certain extent, but we're trying to do things that give us a future."

Washington could wind up spending substantially less than the sum of the commitments. Though the total estimated cost of the government's efforts adds up to $8.5 trillion, only about $3.2 trillion has been tapped, according to an analysis by Bloomberg.

And not all the money committed is direct spending. About $5.5 trillion in loan guarantees and other financial backing by the Federal Reserve is included in the total.

"The only way those commitments would become obligations would be if the economy completely collapsed, in which case it's a whole new ballgame anyway," said John Steele Gordon, a business and economic historian.

The government even stands to make money on some expenditures, such as the $330 billion it has used to buy equity in banks and other financial institutions through the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program.

In the $1.2-billion bailout of Chrysler in 1980, the government ended up gaining $311 million when it sold stock options back to the company three years later.

But the federal efforts to forestall a depression are still historic in scope.

A $1-trillion deficit next year would represent about 7% of the nation's total economic output, or gross domestic product. That would top the 5.9% reached during the height of the Great Depression in 1934 but would fall well short of the deficits of World War II. In 1943, the high point, the deficit amounted to 30% of GDP.

The national debt is soaring too. In September, the National Debt Clock in New York City ran out of digits as the figure ticked over $10 trillion. The debt is now larger than the 45% of GDP it reached at the end of the Great Depression, but less than in 1946, when war spending had pushed the debt to 129% of GDP, said Gordon, author of "Hamilton's Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of Our National Debt."

There's a potentially crucial difference, however, between the spending then and the commitments now:

Much of the Depression-World War II spending was on industrial production -- building new factories and converting existing plants to produce tanks, planes and ships. Huge sums also went into developing new technologies.

Those investments, combined with pent-up consumer demand and savings from the lean war years, quickly led to budget surpluses and sharp economic growth in the late 1940s as the baby boom began.

Analysts warn not to expect that to happen again. This time the government spending is largely ethereal, with the Federal Reserve printing more money to inject liquidity into the financial system and keep banks and other institutions afloat. And savings rates are low.

"Too many Americans have overextended themselves with regard to credit and debt, and too many have been following the bad example of the government," Walker said. "It is imperative that we recognize that this country has been living beyond its means and that we face large and growing structural deficits even after we turn the economy around."

Walker said he understands the need to attack the financial crisis. But the spending only adds to the looming problems of unfunded Social Security and Medicare commitments as baby boomers begin to retire.

He noted that the Moody's bond-rating firm fired a shot across the government's bow in January with a warning that spending on entitlement programs poses a long-term threat to the triple-A rating for government bonds. And that was before the financial crisis.

Interest rates remain low because of the crisis. But they will rise, particularly when the U.S. government starts borrowing more money to cover its growing debt, analysts predict. That could cause inflation to increase as well.

"We could easily enter into a highly inflationary situation because of all the stimulus we have and all the borrowing we have once it works its way through the economy," MacGuineas said. "The single most important priority right now is to stabilize the economy . . . but it really means that there is a huge risk on the other side."

Puzzanghera is a Times staff writer.

jim.puzzanghera@ latimes.com

If They Take My Cheap Beer Away, I'm Leaving

Have I had you sitting on pins and needles this past 10 days, waiting for that next post?

Don't fret, I have been allowing my professor to grade this as a project and waiting for the opportune topic to address.

So we have the reemergence of the Detroit Bailout (here's an interesting look about how the steel industry may provide as an example for automotive), the ongoing assemblage of President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet, the gay marriage issue and the Citigroup bailout all as possible discussion topics.

Luckily, all my readers are way to informed to care about listening to me go on a rant about how there is one simple solution to all of the three topics that are fixable (Obama's cabinet being a news story while the other issues being problems). The government should butt out of people's lifes!

Rather than focus on that junk, I'm going to go off the beaten pat with this post and address something that may be off your radar. Heck, this little nugget was off the epic New York Times Sunday edition.

England is considering a ban on happy hour! Forget the threat of bears, with all of this government intervention these days, is it not possible that the U.S. could follow the footsteps of those crazy Brits!

You want to spark a revolution Mr. Governement, take my happy hour and I will rain fire and brimstone all over your ass! It's right up there with football, apple pie, Internet porn and SUVs with America's past times.

Be sure to check out updates on this story because I sure as hell won't let those bastards get away of they try and pull this stunt in my U.S.A.

God Bless America!

Election Wrap-Up One Week Later

I am sorry blog, I neglected you too long.

But can you blame me? I haven't felt that burned out since I watched a 24-hour marathon of Dawson's Creek.

There are a few things I want to respond to and post in here, so this will be sort of a mix bag of blog goodies. Oh, and I may have to neglect this blog for another week or so because the official class project ends today and I think my professor needs to grade this as is.

Don't worry, though, I will post during winter break and up until someone pays me lots of money for my brilliant insights. That's right. I will sell out and never look back.

First things first, last time I posted was early morning after the election concluded. I ferociously tapped at the keyboard trying to get my election story into the Athens News so I could sleep. Here is a link to that story.

And now I will respond to my story

Things got a little weird after Barack Obama won the election. Everyone I encountered seemed happy, they just didn't know how to react.

The two reactions to transpire were tears of joy and run wild and scream like you have a banana in your pants and a monkey chasing you.

As I wrote in that last post, an Obama victory was one for the youth because so many felt a sense of duty for his victory.

My article states that even students who did not volunteer for the campaign still felt that Obama is the president elect because of their vote.

But the turnout numbers were not as overwhelming as I would have hoped. Even though the youth numbers went up for the third election in a row, 52 percent just doesn't cut it.

According to that Rock the Vote Blog, the 18-29 demographic accounted for 23 million votes. But, there are 44 million in that demographic.

What the fuck dudes?

Who didn't pull their weight? If the number doesn't continue to go at least expand from their in coming elections (and I don't just mean in 2012), then nothing is going to change.

It doesn't matter that the high voter turnout predictions for everyone didn't happen.

The point of this blog is and always will be to push a political agenda for the millennials. But that can't be done without votes.

I will now climb down my soap box and address two other things. But first, check out these cool maps of how the election would have turned out if only a certain demographic had voted. And check out this Racist Belt Theory.

Now onto Rob's insanely long, but totally appreciated comment

If you scroll down to the very bottom of this page, there's a list for followers. Rob would be my only one (this is when I nudge you on the arm and give you a little wink).

And as a loyal follower, Rob did two things. First, HE COMMENTED! Second, he completely disagreed with the man he was following.

Let me make one thing clear. I voted for John McCain knowing there were two flawed candidates. Because I lean right on economic policy (though the Republican party now leans not so right these days), I chose the most conservative candidate in hopes that he would choose the right people to solve the economic crisis.

Rob wrote that he is happy to have an intellectual in the White House, one of the reasons he voted for Obama. I don't know how much smarter Obama is than anyother politician because most seem to have that Ivy League pedigree, but Obama does sound smart and look smart.

I think Presdient George W. Bush has taken a lot of unwarranted criticism (though he did earn his fair share). But it would be difficult to argue that President Bush has come off as the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

So I will agree with Rob there. The other area where I agree with Rob is his fourth point where he states "I think the Republicans need their ass kicked."

McCain was maybe the worst candidate out of the primary pool. My explanation for the low voter turnouts, specificaly the low Republican turnout like in Ohio, is a result of a bad candidate.

Even though the numbers did not meet my expectiations, a lot of sources are writing about how the youth helped Obama get elected. So maybe with that ass kicking, the Republicans will have to get a youth friendly candidate who's not Sarah Palin.

Caution, this next link jumps into the Delorian to talk about 2012. Do not click here if you aren't ready. Although I haven't read enough on him yet, I think I like the idea of Gov. Bobby Jindal running with my only concern being a pro-life agenda (For the record, I am pro-choice because I think the issue is too religious for the government to be meddling with. If put in a position for a personal decision on abortion, I would never do it. And that's all I have to say about that).

Okay, and now to end the epic wrap-up post.

An email from Ohio University College Republican President Mellissa Short answering my pre-election question, what if Obama becomes president?

You pose an interesting question. Having worked personally on the McCain
campaign no doubt I will feel let down and a sense of disappointment after
working hard for a candidate that didn't win. Realistically the only option I'll
have is to express my views and concerns to my Congressman and hope they can
represent my views in Washington. Here on campus I'll undoubtedly have to deal
with a gloating population of Obama supporters, a handful of them being my
friends. But I think it will be interesting to see what happens when things
aren't magically fixed when Obama gets into office and his own supporters turn
on him, if that were to happen that is. Personally I don't see a Republican or
Democrat solution to the problems our country is facing today, I just see a
solution that will be even slower to present itself once all levels of the
Federal government are left leaning. I hope I answered your question, feel free
to edit and paraphrase any of my above comments. I'm looking forward to the
response of an Obama supporter will be.

I was glad that I didn't get a fearful response as some Republicans gave prior to last Tuesday. But the main point I want to drive home pulled from Mellisa's response is this.

Whether you voted for Obama or oppose him, we as citizens (and me as a journalist) need to hold politicians responsible for their actions. As voters, if an Obama administration screws things up, then don't vote for him when that time comes around. If he invokes the kind of change he promised, then give him another four years.

That applies to all elected officials. That will be the roll of this blogs in weeks and months to come, so stay tuned.

Obama Wins One For Youth Voters

I voted for John McCain, and I was not wrong in doing so.

Yes, earlier I posted that I wouldn't share my selection. But now it doesn't matter. The votes are in and I doubt you would have been influenced by me.

I voted McCain because I agree with a conservative ideology (though considering McCain a conservative may be a stretch) more than that of President-Elect Barack Obama and the Democrats. This article really influenced my decision.

But when I was uptown and in Baker Center tonight, watching the Obama supporters react to their candidate's victory, it legitimized him as a candidate for the young voters.

Now, I do not know if his policies are ideal for our generation. But he enfranchised us and that's why a President Obama is the best choice for our generation.

Obama made a significant amount of our generation care about voting. And because our voice was so essential in getting him elected, future elections will be forced to focus on us. That has always been the goal of this blog.

Here are some photos I took tonight and captions to explain each photo's significance. I'll post a link to my Athens News story in this post after it's published on Thursday.

Here is freshman Whitney Barksdale waiting in line to get free food. She told me that voting in her first election made her feel like her opinion was heard. It meant a lot to her to be apart of history in voting for the first African American for president. She said she believes in the change Obama can bring.

This is Skippers, the spot where the College Democrats and local Obama campaign volunteers congregated to watch the election coverage. Do you see the girl in the blue sweater with the arm on her shoulder? That's Liz Clark, the president for OU Students for Obama. I met her when researching for this article last year. She has worked for over a year in helping to get Obama elected.

Tuesday night, she glowed as tears of joy dripped down her cheek. I talked to her early in the night, before Obama captured the presidency. But when I came back to ask her about her final reaction, I couldn't interrupt the moment. During Obama's acceptance speech, he called his victory a victory for those who supported him and Liz has to be one of the people he was referring to.

Sure, these students were in line to get free food. But students are offered free food all the time and don't show up with these numbers. I talked to a few people in line and they all were interested in the election, the kind of enthusiasm that should carry over to future elections with our generation gaining political power.

Here is one of the Court Street mobs that took to screaming and running up and down the street. To be honest, this portion of the night got a little weird as Obama supporters took to skipping and yelling with one guy climbing a street light. I swear some people drove in circles just to honk their horns and yell "Obama" out their windows as much as possible.

The other mob started singing "We Are The Champions" outside of the Scripps Journalism building. When they were finished, they ran and skipped towards me like the herbivore dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.

Where To Get The Best Election Coverage

I'm guessing if you're reading this now, near the peak of election coverage, you are sitting at home, with your laptop on your lap, watching some coverage.

If you just settled in and went straight to this blog, then you are in luck my friend. Between myself and this random graduate student I met at the Donkey cafe, I think I know where you need to go to get the best information.

I think election coverage begins and ends with CNN at this point. My assignment for the Athens News is to cover the election on campus, which has led me to at least peak into four different locations where people are congregated and watching election coverage.

All are tuned into CNN.

Tonya Woodbridge, a graduate student at Ohio University studying education, is parked inside of Donkey armed with a laptop and continuing supply of coffee.

Although Tonya is an absolute Obama supporter, sporting her white t-shirt with the Obama campaign symbol, she is the kind of cynical thinker that I could talk to .

Tonya will not rest until they call the necessary 270 electoral votes and she is positive they are correct.

"I already was tricked once," she told me referring to the 2000 Presidential Campaign. "I went to bed then thinking one guy was going to be president and woke up to find out it was the other guy. I'm not going to let that happen again."

Tonya said she will wait until California's results come in, which probably won't happen for another three hours because the polls there will not close until 11 p.m.

Okay, I'll get back on topic now. From what I have been watching and hearing about the coverage, MSNBC seems to be the most trigger happy. They called Ohio (in favor of Obama) at least fifteen minutes before CNN.

So CNN is probably the best choice for watching TV, unless you are like me and would rather watch Indecision 2008 on Comedy Central. Check out comedian Patton Oswald's live blog from the Indecision 2008 Web site. It's complete bull shit that Comedy Central isn't streaming the coverage over the Web, giving us library patrons a chance to watch.

MSNBC has the best interactive map, in both mine and Tonya's opinions. Here's a look at it:



The wild card in all of this election coverage, in terms of Web production, would have to be Fox News. With an extreme Obama lead from the other two networks (CNN and MSNBC), Fox is taking the ultra conservative, gun shy approach when calling states.

Now their interactive map isn't working for me, but when it was, it may have been the most interesting of the three stations' interactive maps because it is the most different. As I type this, Fox News is calling Ohio for Obama, a mere 40 minutes behind CNN.

So this looks to be in the books, if everyone has reported results accurately. It interests me that the popular vote is so close, 51-48 Obama, but I'm sure that'll change by the end of the night if the stations have been accurately calling state victories. I'll post later tonight with a wrap up of the winner and some photos.

I voted this morning at 9 a.m, did not wait in any line and voted in about five minutes. Some of you may be wondering after all these posts and all the cynicism who I did I give my vote to?

I'm not going to share.

Although I cannot deny my admiration of the passion the Sen. Barack Obama supporters have displayed these past two weeks, I can't take them anymore. I don't care who you voted for, and you shouldn't care who I voted for.

If you want to debate me on something, challenge my cynicism towards both candidates. Tell me why I am wrong when I write that both candidates suck.

All I care about is that you go vote because a vote from a 18-25 year old, no matter who the vote is, should contribute to getting a more quality candidate in 2012. I'm going to make at least two posts tonight, so be ready for that.

Note: I'm well aware that face makes me look like I have a tickle in my anus. It's supposed to be kind of a dazed look I suppose, with elephants and donkeys humping through my head. The graphic is meant to show that I have been battling complete disdain for this election.

I Support Small Government, But McCain May Be Senile And I Ain't Down With That

Finding a Republican on the Ohio University campus is like finding someone who supports the HIV virus.

Okay, that may have been an exaggeration. I'm sure the Republican students are out there, but they aren't exactly coming out to support their candidate. And who can blame them.

Sen. John McCain is old, out-of-touch, computer illiterate, and has been a little erratic (Oh, God, I used the "e" word). Trinity Bracey, my favorite Sen. Barack Obama supporting freshman, told me that McCain makes her fall asleep.

While wearing that Obama/Biden pin or t-shirt has become as trendy as Northface fleeces and Ugg, a McCain/Palin sticker is more like wearing a beret.

Here's a photo from the former Burger King space on Court Street. As far as I can tell, this place is filled with Republican posters and nothing else. In the month or so it's been there, I have seen zero people enter. Is this why nothing has replaced Burger King here?


Okay, I'm not going to ramble onto a long-winded post here. My main concern with McCain is his age (72) and his inconsistency.

McCain has ran an awful campaign. check out this article for some campaign analysis. It was awful because he didn't run as himself, a bi-partisan moderate Republican. Instead, he tossed around the idea of being a Maverick, whatever the hell that means, but really just came off as a confused old man.

As a moderate Republican, he could have distanced himself from President George Bush and not lost the Republican vote because the GOP would see him as the better of two evils in comparison to the very left Sen. Barack Obama.

I know the statistic, that McCain voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, but this is Washington we're talking about. Just because you vote with someone, in the end, doesn't mean you didn't put up a fight. Here' s a quote from a Times Online article:

From then on he became the most reliably anti-Bush figure in the whole Republican Party. He clashed with the President over tax cuts, judicial appointments, the conduct of the war in Iraq, the treatment of detainees in the War on Terror and on campaign finance reform.

When he sought his party's nomination in the primary this year, he was attacked by almost all the other candidates for being insufficiently supportive of President Bush's policies and core conservative principles.

But with winning the nomination, McCain took on a responsibility to be as much like the rest of his party as possible. which led to a connection to Bush.

My second concern is really that McCain could die in office because he has lived such a full life. It would be awful to lose a president in office and even more awful without a strong contingency plan.

There is nothing presidential about Sarah Palin.

In my opinion, McCain would have had a real legit shot at winning tomorrow if he would have done one thing. Stood up against Bush and the rest of Congress when it came to this Wall Street bailout.

I have a big decision tomorrow and I don't know what I'm going to do. Either a) vote McCain because I don't think government should get any bigger and hopefully he would find a way to do so, b)vote for Obama because things are messed up right now and with a favorable Congress he can at least invoke change while McCain would have difficult; or c) vote for Libertarian candidate George Phillies or write in Ron Paul (my favorite candidate in the primaries) because they may see things more my way.

The idea is this. I'm skeptical about both candidates and do not see either as ideal. All I want out of this election is for the 18-25 voter demographic to go out there and put up a big turnout number so maybe that won't be the case in 2012.

I'll be posting tomorrow with my final decision first after I go vote at 9.

Bullwinkle In The White House? Ain't Nothing Wrong With That

I know what all of you sitting on either side of the fence are thinking. If (insert either John McCain or Barack Obama) gets elected utter chaos will ensue in the United States.

We're talking real Old Testament stuff. Real wrath of God. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes. The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

And I don't even know what could happen if Barack Obama really is a closet Muslim! Would we see the wrath of the Biblical God or the God of the Qur'ran?

Once your head stops spinning, take a deep breath. Relax. Despite all the fear both campaigns have used in an attempt to get your vote, real chaos is unlikely.

And after watching the video below, I am 100 percent convinced Obama is not a Muslim:



So what can voters expect if (insert McCain or Obama) wins Tuesday's election? Here are the two scenarios, one for each candidate with a positive spin.

Bad Scenario One: McCain Wins Only To Die From A Heart Attack After He Mistakes A Visit From Charlie (Sheen) With The Vietcong

There is a lot on the Web about this scenario. But a Palin presidency may not be so bad. With a Democrat majority in Congress what could she possibly accomplish with her limited experience as Alaska's Governor?

She could put Bullwinkle in the oval office.

Once those God hating Democrats veto her first suggestion of Vice President Jesus Christ, she'll be sure to fire back with the same kind of VP pick that landed her in the oval office.

A fun loving character who just makes you laugh. Who better than Bullwinkle J. Moose?

The Democrats will be okay with it because they think they can make America hate VP Moose just like they hate VP Dick Cheney.

I know the two have clashed in the past, but Bullwinkle will let bygones be bygones to be vice president. He'll have such a great opportunity to fight for animal rights and isn't it time those animals had a voice in Washington?

The idea isn't that far-fetched of a Palin-Moose administration. Someone already beat me to the two as a dynamic duo:



There was one more perspective I found online of what could happen with a President Palin:



Personally, I like mine better.

Bad Scenario Two: Obama Wins And Turns The U.S.A To The U.S.S.A.

Well, first things first, I cannot be optimistic about an Obama victory leading to us losing a Baldwin brother. But Socialism can't be that bad.

We won't have to worry about picking our doctors, saving for retirement, choosing which banks we can borrow from or what school we want to go to. It'll all be controlled by the government!

Don't you sometimes worry about how much thinking we have to do? It can't be good.

It would be great to just sit back and let the government make all of our decisions. I just hope they can pick my religion too!

All everyone talks about is China this and China that. Look at those people. They don't have to think about anything expect work. That kind of focused thinking has to the ticket to get us out of this crisis.

I know the Chinese is a communist government, but you say tomato, is say tomauto (which doesn't work in print, but you know what I mean).

Does This All Sound Like A Stretch To You?

In case you are wondering if I have gone crazy, you can relax. This is what we like to call a bit of satire. The last journalist at Ohio University used such a device, and people flipped so I thought this disclosure would be necessary.

I would also like to clarify that the video I used in the third graph under the link "Barack Obama really is a closet Muslim" is a farce. I laughed when I watched the video in it's entirety. I respect that my audience would understand that, but I figured I should put this disclaimer just in case you're coming to this blog for the first time. Seriously, if you can't find at least some humor in how ridiculous that video is then maybe this isn't the blog for you.

But I think this is an appropriate post now, five days before the election, because people actually sound scared if the election doesn't go their way.

Remember, though this election is important, there is nothing to fear. The probability of a moose in the White House is the same as the probability of the world ending because Obama or McCain becomes president.

Breath a sigh of relief and don't take all of this so seriously. I would love to hear some other ideas of what you think could happen as a result of the winner's inauguration.

I'll be posting tomorrow why I am skeptical of McCain. And I'll have one more post at least before Tuesday.

On Tuesday I will be posting all day, so forget CNN. I'll have links to everything as it happens and will be reporting stories from various election related locations around Athens.

Until then, drink a beer and have a happy Halloween.

Obama Speaks To Me, But I’m Still Skeptical

Barack Obama entered my life on February 18, 2008 while I was just trying to make a quick buck covering a speech.

Bill Clinton’s 1992 Campaign Adviser, Dave Wilhelm, came to the Ohio University Inn to talk about his recent endorsement of Sen. Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Signs of Hope and Change plastered the walls like graffiti in an ally. Young adults and academics transpired excitement. When Wilhelm took the podium, he played orchestrator to an eager choir.

“Fire it up!” Wilhelm yelled.

“Ready to go!” audience members shouted back.

During the primaries, I did a little investigating into the two Democratic campaigns and without a doubt Obama was head and shoulders above Clinton in youth appeal.

The Obama campaign headquarters, then located in a former thrift store, had a feel of youth collaboration. Volunteers painted murals on the glass that sent a message of exuberance. The inside looked like your average college students room, the kind of organized chaos that looks unkempt and incomprehensible at the first glance but you can eventually get a sense of cohesion and function for everything in the room.

Without a doubt, the Obama campaign’s vibe grabbed our generation’s vote and led him to the Democratic nomination. According to an April 2008 Harvard poll, Obama led the youth vote (18-24) 70-30 over Clinton.

Eight months after that first encounter, there is no doubt in my mind that Obama has been the best candidate of my lifetime in appealing to college voters.

Are Young Obama Voters Idealists?

If you are not convinced that Obama has become a borderline rock star, then you have not met OU freshman Trinity Bracy.

I met Trinity, a volunteer for the Obama campaign, this year through my sister, also a freshman at OU. Last month, my sister left her single dorm room and moved in with Trinity, which is why I found myself in their room.

The picture below is of Trinity’s Sen. Joe Biden autographed Obama-Biden poster.

"I feel like (Obama is) the one who can make a difference,” Trinity told me. “I think the country is not in the right direction and Barack Obama can be the change we need."

Trinity is not alone in feeling this way. Her friend Mike Desposito, another freshman, sat next to her and reiterated the same kind of unbreakable optimism.

"The way Obama speaks, you just feel like there's hope,” Mike said. “I've heard McCain speak and I've listened to Bush speak. But I just feel that when I listen to Barack there actually is some light at the end of the tunnel."

Obama supporters can be refreshing. I was in the middle of some Obama campaign activities before the Ohio primary and those volunteers gave me the same idealist vibe that Mike and Trinity spewed out seven months later.

A lot of young voters trust Obama. A lot of young voters think his inexperience is a breath of fresh air in a failed system. A lot of young voters think his main campaign slogan, the word “Change,” will happen with an Obama administration.

So why with less than a week until Election Day am I not waving the flag on the Obama bandwagon?

Here’s Why I’m Skeptical of Barack Obama

A black candidate appeals to me because it’s a huge step in the right direction, which is to put the best people in the position to lead, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religious belief.

He’s not a Muslim, but that would not bother me in the least bit if he was.

I have to agree with something Mike said, Obama’s inexperience may actually be an advantage. Because being the presidency is a team game and experience can be obtained.

In the YouTube, sound bite world we live in today, a speaker like Obama reigns supreme because he works so well in that forum. But I do not think we have seen everything that works into who Obama is.

No, I’m not referring to William Ayers or Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I want someone to address the $603 million elephant in the room.

According to the Web site for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group aimed to inform citizens about how money in politics, $603 million is how much Obama has raised in this campaign. To put that into context, Sen. John McCain has only raised $358 million. (Here's a link to this cool image of the two candidates campaigning like they are NASCAR drivers)

Combine that $961 million to the $221 million Sen. Clinton raised and the $107 million Mitt Romney raised and you get $1.29 billion dollars.

It comes down to this, Obama has ran on this idea of Change, but it seems like he has been playing the same game as other politicians, he’s just been dominating it.

In 2004, President George Bush raised just $367 million and Sen. John Kerry collected $328 million.

Now, I’m not an expert on lobbyists or anything, but here is what I do know. People do not give money and expect nothing in return. Goldman Sachs, the financial firm that is supplying the brains behind how to use the bailout money, donated $874,207 to Obama. (Note: Goldman Sachs also donated money to McCain, just not as much. You click here to check out this site for him. This note comes after my original post.)

That could spell zero change with the bailout game plan under an Obama administration to me.

There are more reasons why I am skeptical of Obama, specifically on labor issues and economic ideology, but I’ll save that for another day once I get in touch with more expert sources.

In no way is this me making a decision on who I will vote for next week. I plan on posting later this week my reasons for not liking McCain either. But I think it’s necessary to have some healthy skepticism (not fear) of each candidate.

Will You Be Able To Support Yourself, Wall Street and Detroit When You Get That First Job?

There is a lot of bullshit being flung sort of behind our backs. While we are all looking at the election and feeling sorry for ourselves as we head into a recession, the government is using the bailout money to pick and choose who stays and who goes.

PNC will be using bailout money to purchase National City Corp. serving as a

precedent for how Henry Paulson wants to resolve the economic crisis.

My other big riff, which I admit stems down from my dad who constantly writes letters to the editor of local papers on the subject, is the governments continued bailout of Detroit.

Here's a Wall Street Journal blog that I felt the need to comment. Basically the article talks about how GM is going to be asking for money to purchase Crysler so two bad companies can become one ever larger bad company. Here's my comment:

no one can afford the inefficient American car anymore, especially when price is going to keep rising as more and more baby boomer union members retire.

the unions and the Big 3 should be condemned for their actions. a more efficient American auto industry will emerge, though it will not rival “the big 3 model” because that industry bit off more than it could chew. this just in, the U.S. isn’t the only country that can build cars anymore, so it’s time to start from scratch and figure out how to compete in a global market.

it’s not fair to ask me to support both myself and bad business during my first 20 years in the workforce. it’s not fair to ask any tax payer to pay for bad business. so let’s stop the this now.

we need to hold politicians liable for catering to bad business. target them, and vote them out of office.

Comment by the800lbsgorillia - October 28, 2008 at 2:11 pm

I'll be getting back to election related posts tonight, but I just wanted to throw this up because it's very relevant to those about to enter the work force (ie. anyone in college now who plans on getting a job in the next five years). After the election some time, I'll write more extensively on the subject.