Democrats are really something. I don't say this because I favor Democrats. Nor because they are special in any way. And let me clarify this - I am speaking about politicians and not people.

Democrats are just as prone to polispeak. They break campaign promises just as often. They have scandals, ignore constituents, and promote special interests as much as any other political group. But the thing that really gets me is the style they have in doing all this.

Democrats don't just get caught stealing money, they have it sitting in their refrigerator. They don't just nominate (or appoint) officials that no one has heard of or lacking experience, they go out and get people that are particularly unqualified.

Just look at recent events. In New York State we had a Democratic Governor that was actively looking to appoint Caroline Kennedy. She has no experience, has no defined political positions, and her best argument for the position is her last name. Why did she not get the position as Senator? Because she has a massive number of skeletons in her closet; and even with that information Gov. Patterson was still courting her at the last minute.

Then there is Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich was caught trying to sell the Senate seat. Rather than resign, he turned the tables and made an appointment to the position. Thus making the story about the lack of Black Senators, the question of the validity of the appointment, the credibility of the appointee, and the division in the Democratic Party.

In fact the Governor of Illinois is still causing an uproar. because instead of defending himself he is talking about how he wanted Oprah Winfrey for the job. Talk about unqualified.

Yes, Winfrey is intelligent, and popular. Yes she does good deeds, and has a ton of cash. In fact she is the exact equal of Caroline Kennedy. Including the fact that she has no qualification for public office. The closest she has ever come to anything political is her lavish support of President Obama during the Primaries and election. And that puts her on the list of possibles.

Democrats don't just have balls, they are crazy. They seem willing to substitute qualifications for publicity. They seem to promote opinion polls versus positions. And they do so in a hoard of media cameras as if they were entertainers or celebrities. And then they expect us to blame EVERYONE else when things go wrong - like Barney Frank insists.

Other political parties have at least an equal number of foul-ups in their ranks. They all have prima donnas and power-hungry opportunists. But in the Democratic Party it seems that this is the best features in their top ranks.

I just can't wait to see what will happen next. Las Vegas should be running betting pools over what will happen first. Barney Frank blaming the extension of bank failures on someone else (likely the Bush Administration for another 18 months), Secretary of State Clinton being questioned about receiving tens of millions from foreign Governments while in discussions with those nations on behalf of America, Vice President Biden saying something racist and/or stupid, or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid insisting the time of the Congress is best spent combing thru every document and comment ever made in the prior 8 years.

And all the while bulbs will be flashing, and news media will be gushing as President Obama tells the nation that he will change things while they stay exactly the same.

Yet its other political parties that are bad for the nation, filled with malcontents, and ineffective. Only Democrats would have the balls to look the nation in the eyes and spew that polispeak.

Labels: Barney Frank, Caroline Kennedy, Congress, Democratic Party, Gov. Patterson, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, Polispeak, Secretary of State Clinton

I had some extra time today so I decided to take a look at what has happened this year. I wanted to go back and take a look at the various buyouts and bailouts that the Government has backed, and the promises made so far. And the numbers are horrendous.

The main focus so far is on the $1.5 trillion that has been authorized and/or spent thus far. $700 billion for the bailout of mortgages and the credit crunch, and now another $800 billion for mortgages and consumer loans. But those numbers are not the full amount of cost this year.

The year started with the bailout of Bear Stearns. It cost $29 billion to allow JPMorgan to buy that failed brokerage house. And we were promised that would fix everything. Then there was the $150 billion stimulus package that was promised to fix the sagging economy, which failed. Then came Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Representative Barney Frank publicly pronounced as healthy and secure, that cost $120 billion each (not including the $600 billion that is now part of the $800 billion bailout package). And the numbers are still not done.

AIG cost $120 billion by itself. That though was said to be included in the $700 billion authorized by Congress. That means of the 1/2 of the funds given to Treasury Secretary Paulson only $230 billion was available for everything else needed. Not counting the tens of billions given to banks, or the money spent to buy bad loans at unknown valuations.

Of course there was also Citigroup. This cost $20 billion plus $306 billion for guarantees of their bad loans, for a total of $326 billion. Now that is a problem because if the funds came out of the same pool as AIG, we are in a bigger negative than the spending is already creating. A double negative of sorts. And yes I know that guarantees are not the same as cash, but a guarantee must be backed by something besides words. Which means cash from somewhere.

But let us not forget the $25 billion given to the auto industry. And that has nothing to do with the additional $25 billion that is being asked for now, just roughly 5 weeks later. Which is separate money. And that precedent is going to lead to the requests of the airline, credit card, home building/construction and other industries. If the Government is handing out money to businesses, it would be folly not to get in the line.

So the total is $1.94 trillion dollars. Which does not include Citigroup or the additional amounts from the auto industry. Including that figure we get $2.27 trillion in money that never existed and must be repaid. To be exact that means that every American, each of the 300 million citizens, owes $7,567 to the Government.

It is expected that some of these loans and stock purchases will eventually break-even or turn a profit. The expectation is that will happen in 10 - 15 years. Though it is absolutely unclear how the public will be repaid, though the Government will collect all the money. Thus it is possible that the Government will receive money from the public and hold repayments from loans - effectively being paid twice. And it is very likely that any repayment will be funneled into Government agencies instead of the public, as was attempted by Democrats with the first version of the mortgage bailout bill.

But even if 40% of the loans were to make a 50% profit, the bulk of the debt incurred will still be greater. And that does not cover the direct cash infusions made without a loan or repayment provision - which is about 70% of all the funds so far as I can gather.

And the fun does not end there. Remember that President-elect Obama, pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has promised a now $700 billion second stimulus plan. The exact details of this plan are unclear, but some amount will be given to the public and some will be used to fund public works. Or so the loose plans state so far. That would mean that in 1 year the cost is $2.97 trillion.

And President-elect Obama still is pushing to add over $800 billion in new spending for new and/or expanded programs. That makes it $3.77 trillion. Or in terms of cost to you and I - $12,567. That's for every man, woman, and child alive right now - working or not.

Put in different terms, this money could have completely funded the entire NASA budget (roughly $419 billion unadjusted for inflation) since inception nearly 10 times over. We could have funded 1,000 moon landings ($36 billion unadjusted) including all the research and development.

Let me make it more personal. That amount is more than the entire net worth of Oprah Winfrey, Bob Johnson, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Tom Cruise, Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffett combined and multiplied by 10. It's enough money that every single American citizen, of any age, could go to the average college for 2 years. It's enough money to give every American alive today a 10% down-payment on a $120,000 house.

And there is no guarantee, in fact there is reason to highly doubt, that it will get better.

Labels: AIG, Barney Frank, Bill Gates, Citigroup, Congress, Freddie Mac, mortgage bailout, Nancy Pelosi, NASA, Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Treasury Secretary Paulson, U.S. economy, Warren Buffett

New York (PRWEB) January 9, 2008 -- M V Consulting, Inc. announced today that the final numbers for the entire year of 2007 have been tabulated with phenomenal results. The Company's websites have grown at a remarkable pace, exceeding expectations and indicative of positive acceptance by internet users. In addition the Company's sites were involved with several promotions and events that could not be anticipated, and display the impact that has been made to date.

"2007 was a great year. The blogs of the company grew by over 100% in virtually every metric that can be identified. The give away contests sponsored by the company were well received, if predominantly regional. We were surprised and pleased to receive the opportunity to work with TV One on live coverage of the Heartland Presidential Forum on December 1st 2007. That's something you just can't predict and we are thrilled about it, while looking forward to working with TV One again in the future," stated M V Consulting, Inc. President Michael Vass.

Actual performance numbers are considered proprietary by the Company, but percentile growth and other metrics are available for the public. Some of the most important metrics are:

• Visitors to the site tend to be 41% men, and 59% women
  
  
• 46% of visitors tend to be between the ages of 25 - 54
  
  
• 51% of visitors are college educated, with 37% having no college education at all
  
  
• Visitors to Black Entertainment USA for the 12 months ending December 31st 2007 increased by 156%.
  
  
• Individual pages viewed by visitors on Black Entertainment USA increased by 367%
  
  
• The number of visitors from countries across the globe increased by 35%
  
  
• At the Vass site the breakdown was (this blog only existed for the last 4 months of 2006):
  
  
• Visitors for the full year increased by 5900%
  
  
• Individual pages viewed by visitors on Vass increased by 9700%
  
  
• While the number of countries remained relatively flat. The lack of growth in countries outside the USA may be attributable to the increased focus on the Presidential race and candidate's campaigns throughout 2007 as well as the limited time of existence in 2006.
  
  
  The M V Consulting, Inc. corporate homepage was launched in May 2007 and therefore has no comparative numbers. Growth was solid and comparable to the first 7 months of either blog, reaching on average 48 countries across the world.
  
  The Company also owns an online store which features 12 separate and distinct clothing lines, as well as providing custom designed mugs, mouse pads, Teddy bears, gift cards, journals, postage stamps and more. Individual sales figures for this division are not reported.
  
  Results of the Company's SEO division are not reported and considered proprietary.
  

Other events

Several other events occurred in 2007 that were of significant importance. The Company created and sponsored 3 separate contests in 2007.

Robin Roberts book - From the Heart - in association with Authorsontheweb.com

Dinner at the Instinct Restaurant - in association with Instinct in Endicott, New York

$1000 for the holidays - run by M V Consulting Inc. with a $100 bonus added to the winning prize given to Cheryl W of New York State.

In addition to these contests, the company was contacted by TV One, which reaches 40 million people via its cable network channel. On December 1st 2007 TV One had a live webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum, for which it selected 5 political bloggers to comment on live. Of the thousands of potential bloggers available, President Michael Vass was selected for his writing at the Vass blog, and was invited to join the event as one of the 5 bloggers. The company accepted, creating over 9 posts related to the event (prior and after the event) including 6 live during the event.

TV One and M V Consulting, Inc. cross-promoted the event via the individual websites of each company.

Additional items

To date, the various blogs of the Company have created nearly 1000 posts in total. In 2007 alone there was an increase of 201% in the number of posts. The blogs had a total number of posts that exceeded the number of days in the year, thus exceeding publication rates of virtually every other media format and/or syndicated author.

The blogs of the Company have dealt with some of the most topical issues of the year, if not several of the most controversial in perhaps 100 years. Those topics included the death of Anna Nicole Smith and James Brown. The scandals surrounding Don Imus, Duane 'Dog' Johnson, Michael Vick, and Megan Williams. The Presidential candidates of both political parties. Also news involving entertainers and celebrities such as Paris Hilton, Wesley Snipes, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, and more. Not to mention reviews of restaurants, movies, books, and video games and information about Darfur and the Child Solider Prevention Act.

President Michael Vass is also a contributing author for the 1800blogger.com family of blogs. Mr. Vass writes for a total of 8 additional blogs on a regular basis besides those of the Company.

Mr. Vass stated, "This is only the beginning. Growth has exceeded all expectations and for 2008 we have raised the bar. While visitors to the various sites of the Company equaled or exceeded several metropolitan areas of the United States, our goal now is to reach the equivalent population of the major urban centers of the nation, if not New York City itself. Expect to see our clothing lines in colleges across the nation. And we are looking to lock down 2 exclusive sponsors for the various sites, further minimizing advertising clutter and providing an immersive and non-distracting atmosphere near term. Expect more news on other events soon."

For additional information please contact M V Consulting, Inc. President Michael Vass at info@vassconsult.com or 718-344-6921.

About M V Consulting, Inc. and Michael Vass:

Mr. Michael Vass is a former securities industry account executive of good standing, and currently works in the field of investor relations. 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.

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 (vassconsult.com), and an online store (cafepress.com/nova68).

Labels: cafepress.com/nova68, Darfur Accountibility Act, Heartland Presidential Forum, holiday contest, M V Consulting, Michael Vass, mvass.com, Oprah Winfrey, Robin Roberts, TV One, Will Smith

For days now I have heard discussion and arguments about Oprah Winfrey. Is it a good thing that she is backing a politician, does it matter that the politician is Black, does it violate regulations and restrictions in the media? They go on with, can Oprah affect politics like she can book sales, does this help or hurt Senator Obama and the Democratic party, how much effect will women and African Americans really have in this next election, and on and on.

But I have to wonder.

Ms. Winfrey is a noted entertainment figure, of that there is no doubt. And there is no question that her fans are legion. To question the impact of her ability to lend credibility to anything she advocates is to have blinders on to the recent past. Ms Winfrey is unique among virtually all her entertainment peers, past and present, in that she moves mountains.

There is no coincidence that because of Ms Winfrey, an 18,000 seat arena was sold-out in virtually no time, in Columbia, South Carolina. The fact is that she wields power. And at the match of that is Senator Obama.

In the beginning of the year, when the average citizen was ignoring the early start of the Presidential race, Senator Obama was called a ‘young Senator without a chance.’ That he would ‘make an interesting distraction until real candidates got involved.’ That was the opinion of the pundits across the major media outlets. How wrong they were.

Suffice to say that Senator Obama is a real candidate, with appeal to all Americans, and his own goals for the country. He is no cookie-cutter politician, nor is he flustered by the Clinton political machine that has ground many other opponents to dirt.

So given the high credentials of both these figures, the fact they have spoken and discussed issues in the past that are mutually aligned, and that they have a media presence individually that is impressive, why are there questions?

When Don Cheadle, George Clooney, and others have spoken about Darfur, the media did not blink. When Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made efforts to help millions in Louisiana and Africa there was barely any attention. When Hanoi Jane Fonda, and Tim Robbins protested the war in Iraq, few centrists (where I think most of the nation is) cared.

But in this one instance we get something different. We get a real media powerhouse backing a real candidate. That is not to say that Barbara Streisand, Bon Jovi, or Sir Bono, among others, are (were) not powerful in a manner, but they are not powerhouses. Moreso they are not minorities. And I think that scares more than a few.

I think the huge media argument has been very simple and well disguised. Some fear that 2 Black figures at the top of their respective fields can make things change. No one questioned Oprah while she avoided politics. No one worried about how Senator Obama campaigned or who backed him. But the second both were linked there was frenzy.

Why?

Because they both are articulate individuals, and in a manner that does anything but evoke the stereotypes and back-handed compliments usually attached to that phrase. Because millions agree with their views and most of those are citizens that have not historically used the power of their vote. Women, African Americans, and the youth. None of these groups have been noted for actually voting in high numbers or in a block. And some are terrified if they do.

If these 3 groups come out in force and vote, the traditional political power lines will fail and things will change. It doesn’t matter if they vote for Senator Obama or not. The result will be a shift, and many in America are terrified by such a change. Its implications could end the control some have had for centuries.

This is the reason why some pundits try to belittle the “Oprah effect”, knowing that said effects reach and power is known and unmatched. It is the reason why some pundits state it will not help Senator Obama. It is why 18,000 rushed to hear these 2 people in the middle of the South, a point that has not been duplicated in the past or present and cannot be underestimated.

In everything I have heard I come back each time to one thought. Some are afraid of having 2 Black powerhouses, saying the same thing together, signaling the real end to the ‘White Old Boys Club’ in the most significant way. If my supposition is correct, then I herald that chance. I look forward to that change. I am not endorsing Senator Obama, but I am recognizing the impact.

I once wrote if celebrity endorsements affect how some vote. Perhaps I should have asked and discussed if a triumvirate of minorities coming out to vote in force can improve America. That is the real question behind Oprah and Senator Obama. That is the real fear. For some.

Labels: Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Columbia, Don Cheadle, George Clooney, Oprah effect, Oprah Winfrey, Presidential race, Senator Obama, South Carolina

Continued from Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic Presidential Candidates Part 1...

These are a few Pros and Cons of the various candidates that will be appearing on at the Heartland Presidential Forum that will be webcast live by TV One on Saturday.

Senator Barack Obama

Pros


• Lawyer
  
• Current 1st term Senator
  
• Healthcare advocate
  
• First African American candidate with a chance
  
• Liberal in most policies
  
• Oprah Winfrey is major supporter
  
• Not Hillary Clinton
  
• Gained multiple former long-time Clinton supporters
  
• Consistently against Iraq war
  
• Charismatic, compassionate
  
• Pro-abortion
  
• Strong individual citizen support (internet donations)
• 
  
  Cons
  
  
• Lawyer
  
• Relative short public office experience
  
• Black
  
• Has interracial parents
  
• Lived in an Islamic nation (as a youth)
  
• Allegedly a smoker
  
• No military service
  
• Non-traditional name
  
• Pro-Illegal Immigration
  
• Anti-school vouchers
  
• Pro-immediate withdrawal from Iraq
  
• Pro-abortion
  

Continued in Part 3...

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Oprah Winfrey, political debate, Senator Barack Obama, TV One

I love the way politicians pick on a subject they know they can get attention with, all the while knowing that it’s complete hogwash. I’ll take the recent confrontation the Senator Clinton faced from John Edwards and Senator Obama. It was the near-famous refusal of Senator Clinton to give up lobbyist funding that did it. Didn’t the other candidates feel smug.

Of course, none of the others are getting nearly as much money from lobbyists so they might be a bit more willing since it levels the playing field a bit. Not that any of the Presidential candidates will give up the funds they have received unilaterally. Now that would make a statement and force others to follow their move. But bold groundbreaking political actions are not for this Presidential race.

Don’t be fooled. The question about lobbyist money is self-serving. If you are not getting the majority of it, you want to no one else to keep any. It makes it easier to be competitive. And don’t think that any of the candidates desire to let the public know where their money is coming from.

So far only Senator Obama provides an easy reference to where his bundled contributions are coming from. Bundled money would be, as an example, funds raised by Oprah Winfrey at her upcoming dinner party that is $2300 minimum to enter, if you were invited.

Let me correct myself, Senator Clinton did make it clear as well, 3 months ago on a blog by a lesser staffer, stuffed in the 4th paragraph, without other notice or fanfare. That is about as clear as pea soup.

Some may think this is the norm for Presidential candidates, but the fact is that President Bush, in 2004 made it somewhat easy (and far moreso than what is available today) on where his money was coming from and thus forced other candidates to be almost as clear. As maligned as President Bush may be these days, none of the current candidates match his actions. That seems to say a lot about how serious these candidates are, don’t you think?

And this does not even touch on the money received by candidates from special interest groups, which I spoke about before. Not surprisingly Senator Clinton and Mitt Romney lead in this arena, at least with healthcare.

So the Daily Kos may have cheered, the soundbites may sound great, but there is no substance behind any of it that I can find. Smoke and mirrors are not only for magicians, politicians use them well too. Sadly, I don’t find it entertaining.

Do you?

Labels: daily kos, Mitt Romney, Oprah Winfrey, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Politics and Hollywood. These 2 go together like white on rice, and are separate like oil and water. It’s something that is a big deal if you have it and not a big issue if you don’t. At least among pundits.

For those that are more Democrat, and/or liberal, Hollywood and the entertainment industry it represents are flag bearers of causes such as the environment or retreating from Iraq. To a smaller extent the more centrist views are held there as well with few (though often powerful) conservative or Republican issues as well. Because of this, and the fact that Hollywood support means large money donations and lots of faces with access to the media touting your candidate, most would enjoy having the top of the Hollywood elite joining their side.

One of the most powerful, Ms. Oprah Winfrey, is making the most of this. Ms. Winfrey joined others in support of Senator Obama in April. Her public declaration carries a lot of weight in most subjects. A book or movie that can boast her thumbs up can often be assured of success. Now we will see if this translates into the political world as well.

Possibly the first example of that transition may be in an up-coming fund-raiser at Ms. Winfrey’s home. Already invitations have been sent out to various entertainment figures, and there is limited space. Each RSVP includes a $2300 donation to Senator Obama, with dinner and time to get personal for those that get combined donations of $50,000 or more.

It’s a lot of money potentially, and obviously a lot of media attention. It gives pause to the Senator Clinton political machine that had previously held the lead on Hollywood endorsements.

But is that really important? Besides the tons of money that ensures advertisements and fliers, and makes the candidates beholden to the interests of big donors, what else is there? Do people with less than extreme fervor really care if celebrity XYZ likes this politician or the other?

While Ms. Winfrey is a coup for Senator Obama, being the first she has endorsed and is pushing to support, does that really equate to voters? I can see her causing more books to be sold, or a movie to get higher ticket sales, but votes? Do people trust ANY entertainer to tell them who is the best politician, especially when it comes to the Presidency?

It’s an interesting question. One that will soon be found out. There is no doubt that a great deal of attention will be paid to who shows up for this fund-raising event. More than a few celebrities and entertainers will be questioned about their endorsement, both tacit and explicit. But what will it matter?

I wonder if Senator Obama, or Senator Clinton, or even Mr. Rudy Giuliani as examples were endorsed by Snoop Dogg if that would help them or hurt them. Does that change in any manner the quality of the candidate? If it does, why?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: celebrity endorsement, fund-raising, Oprah Winfrey, presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Snoop Dogg