So I have been listening to the argument that New York State needs to increase it's taxes to make the budget. It is expected that the State will miss by some $15 billion, and thus something needs to be done.

The current plan will increase taxes on everything from State college tuition to Gatorade. Literally. Expect higher prices for gas, and tax back on clothing under $110 dollars. Costs of Driver's liscences will go up, as will hair cuts, and your cable/satellite tv/radio bill. Internet downloads will also now have a cost, no matter what you download. Higher prices will also be found at the golf courses, parks, and camping areas (so every income level can feel the bite).

But don't fret because with these increased costs there comes increased spending. Yes I said spending. Like $350 million in new student loans (yes I realize that the new 14.5% increase in State tuition costs will absorb some of this) for 45,000 students. Increase welfare payments for 200,000 families. A $1 million dollar anti-obesity program (obviously not more than one television commercial run once across the State at 30 seconds). Increase pay for 1,200 state judges.

Other increases, which sound reasonable will include:

• Increase funding in programs to prevent lead poisoning in children - $2.5 million
  
• Increased funds for food banks, pantries, soup kitchens and shelters
  
• Returning military veterans and their families get the government services to which they are entitled - $1.1 million
  

Obviously there is an imbalance here. There is far more spending than money coming in. And that is before all the new spending. So cuts in spending are needed. Yes, some spending will be cut, imagine that.

Where will the cuts go? Cutting income tax loopholes. Because we all use them to rake over the State, right? And reduced funding for hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. And 3.3 percent cut in school aid spending - roughly $600 million dollars (almost 2x the amount of new loans).

One of the biggest things will be cutting the Empire Zone program in half. You know that program. It's the one where companies get a break for staying in New York State instead of going to a cheaper State like most companies have done in the last decade. So cut that in half and increase corporate taxes, and personal, and increase taxes on all goods. That will keep a company in state and make more people employed.

But there is still a shortfall in this nightmare pipedream. So Gov. Patterson will add video slot machines at Belmont in case anyone who has some money left can lose it there.

This is a bad budget. It's based on a dumb premise. That companies will want to spend the extra money to say they are in New York State. The place already with the highest taxes in the nation. And thus their employees will be able to survive on less money after all these new taxes. And children will get better educations since their school will have less funding, meaning better jobs in the future.

Seriously.

Why don't we cut unessential spending, not create new spending, and maybe lower taxes on a few essential items like gas. Maybe lowering the State sales tax by half a percent. Maybe keeping the internet free. You think that maybe these things might stimulate growth. Maybe get more people spending here than in other states?

Hey here is a big idea. Modify the state no smoking law such that private businesses have the option to be a smoking or non-smoking establishment. With proper signage in the front of the business so patrons know what their choices are. Restaurants and bars might recover some of the 30% loss in revenues they have taken and never recovered when the state law was enacted. Add a drop in the tax on cigarettes so people might not travel to, or buy from people that travel to, other states (NJ, PENN) to buy their cigarettes.

I bet just those simple things will bring in more money than raising the taxes on everything as people lose money to the stock market, increased (it will happen sooner or later) energy costs, and fewer jobs (due to credit crisis or the fact that being in any other state is cheaper).

My ideas definitely can't be worse than what is being proposed now. And I bet no one has checked the benefit of what I just said.

Labels: Empire Zone, Gov. Patterson, government spending, New York State, tax increase

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine. He too was a former stockbroker, and concerned about the bailout. He believes that the $700 billion should be approved, because we cannot let this go on for a prolonged period of time.

I was informed that Jim Cramer was on cable television discussing how this bailout must be approved lest 5 million homeowners hit the market all at once. I was informed that other stockbrokers we know are looking at the potential for the market to drop up to another 1000 points if this bailout is not approved immediately. And I was reminded that this is not a situation that will resolve itself.

My friend remembered that this problem did not start last moth, or this year, or last year. He was clear in that this is far beyond politics. That we as a nation are facing the serious potential of a depression if this is handled wrong.

But as I listened, and reflected on my previous thoughts on this issue, and all the news that has been made available I was reinforced on my opinion.

The bailout as it stands is not in the best interest of the nation. Throwing money at a problem will never resolve it. Politicians and regulators have no understanding of the depth or causes of this crisis. Had they any understanding they would have seen the problem over a year ago. In January they would have reacted properly, but they all had no clue. Giving them even a Trillion dollars will not end the problem.

The bailout is meant to be an investment for the public. But this investment currently has no established value, no terms of repayment, no system of repayment, nor any assurance that future repayment will not be needed. I have a problem with that.

Honestly this is not like getting a credit card or a loan. In both of those cases you are assuming part of the cost of those that fail to make their payments in the interest rate you pay. You are provided documentation that states how you share in that coverage. It’s a system maintained by the private business that created the system.

The bailout, as proposed, is a mortgage – for some like me a 2nd mortgage – to which we receive no benefit other than the security of knowing the financial system might continue for another day. And while my friend believe that the next President will not directly raise taxes in the wake of this bailout, I believe that must. My friend believes that we will see social programs cut, and on that I agree as well.

The next President will have to raise taxes. While I doubt they will ask for the $5,000 to $10,000 that is estimated for the bailout from each American taxpayer, I do believe that taxes will increase for everyone by 5% at least. Because of the bad decisions of some people and several businesses. And that does not take into account some of the very costly programs one of the Presidential candidates wants to implement.

I also believe that no matter what the terms of the bailout ends up as, the market will lose over 1000 points from where it is now. With the eventual return of short-stock trades, a 4th quarter for retail companies that will by abysmal, and increasing costs for crude oil and heating oil, the market will have little choice but to turn down. The picture is dire. But taking blind action is no better than inaction.

We need time to figure out what to do, and how. To determine the full cost, and how the public can be repaid. To unravel the actual valuation of these properties, and to decide how many homeowners in default will be allowed to lose their homes – because the only way some will not is in a dreamworld.

I believe that some $200 billion should be used to fill the water in the tub, and then time spent to find the actual leak. Before the 4th quarter ends we should be able to answer the big questions facing us now – how much, how long, will we be paid back, and how to get the money back.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe my friend, Cramer, and others are right. But I have to tell you that I am afraid, not of what happens if this works but what happens they are wrong.

Labels: financial news, Jim Cramer, mortgage crisis, tax increase

Let’s talk taxes and business. It’s one of the key items in the campaigns of each of the Presidential candidates, and I know its something average Americans are concerned about.

Now let me state something up front. I am a Republican, business owner, Black Puerto Rican, 40 year old man. I am voting for the McCain – Palin ticket. So if you cannot accept any of those thoughts, click away now.

I want to examine one of the tax plans that has gotten huge support and acclaim – that of Senator Obama. In reality this is a tax plan that the Democratic Party has always pushed for most of my life. It can be summed up in the following:

• Tax the rich
  
  
• Tax business
  
  
• Tax the stock market
  

Let me explain in simple terms why this is a stupid plan.

Assume that Senator Obama wins the election. And a Democratic Congress remains in force. And their tax plans are enacted.

First the President Bush tax cuts will be reversed. Based on the votes from earlier this year that would mean that every American making $31,850 or more would have a 3% tax increase.

Now add to this the thought that business taxes increase 10%. And payroll tax increases 3%. And short-term and long-term tax on investments increases 10%. And lastly the minimum wage is increased to say $9.

Middle and low income Americans should rejoice, right? The rich are now paying for everything like some believe they should. The economy will improve and everyone will get nationalized (meaning standardized) healthcare.

So if you were at 28% tax, you are bumped up to 31%, but you are making more money now so it’s ok? Well in a vacuum yes. But in the real world you are out of your mind.

As a business owner I have to pay corporate taxes as well as my personal taxes. So I am faced with a situation where my raw materials cost more, my employees cost more, and I pay more in taxes at every turn.

If I had a business that had revenues of $100,000, and 2 part-time employees, and paid myself a salary here is the rough scenario.

Let’s say that my cost of goods is only 10%, research 3%, location 15%, energy use 15%, corporate taxes are 39% and employees get $7/hr. This is before the tax increase and minimum pay jump. They become 49% and $9 respectively. So if my employees cost $9/hr @ 20 hours a week each they are a minimum of 17% not including tax for them. For simple math let’s just call it 20%.

That’s a total of 112%. Without assuming my cost of goods from other businesses in the same position have increased, or if the price of energy increases (which it has for every year since 1972), I am in debt 12%, or in this example $12,000.

That says nothing of paying myself anything. Add in a modest living of $35,000 for owning the business and you get even more debt – but let’s say that I just have it at no cost to the business – though I am paying at least 31% on that money (including the end of the Bush tax cuts) as well.

So I am now in debt. Where can I cut cost? Raw goods and energy are essentially fixed to me. Location is fixed. Taxes are fixed. I could increase prices of my finished goods or services, but there is no guarantee that consumers will pay the higher price. Plus I still have to pay everything first to even test if consumers will pay a higher price.

So a smart plan is to increase my sale price by no more than 5% - small enough to test if the new price range will work, and most won’t notice it. Still I am short the upfront money to get the goods. The only variable left is to cut what I can affect.

I would need to cut either the number of employees and/or their hours until I can bring costs to just even (and probably take a pay cut). At that point I can see if I can make a profit with the price increase.

Now this scenario is overly simplified, given. [A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.] But the theory is sound. So please explain to me where the higher taxes benefit the 95% of people that receive a paycheck? They will get more money, but fewer of them will be working – and working less hours with higher expectations at that.

The pressure to make a profit increases exponentially if that company has stock and needs to make a profit for investors. And higher profits than normal since they have to make up for the loss incurred from taxing investments.

People that have investments so they can retire are now hurt as they either have to wait longer to retire, or must lower their quality of life. I don’t mean the CEO’s on television quality of life, I mean papa Joe who built up positions in GE so he could sell it over time to make up the difference between SSI (which will be going bankrupt shortly) and his pension that was cut after the company lost it’s ass in the internet bubble crash.

Feeling cheerful? Taxing the rich sound good still?

Add in the cost of higher raw goods since those companies have to make more money too. Add in the higher cost of energy – either because of higher oil prices or the cost of creating and converting to alternative energy. Remember ethanol is only ¾ as efficient as gasoline, so you will need more of it and thus spend more money for the same usage. Plus building solar plants, wind power generators, research and development of biomass, geothermal, and the rest.

And these costs go up every year.

And don’t even mention paying for healthcare, which employers have to cover.

So someone please explain to me how the Democrats plan to raise taxes will benefit anyone. Like I said earlier, it looks great in a vacuum but I own a business in the real world and it doesn’t look so good there.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, small business, tax increase, tax policy

As the Democratic National Convention is about to start I want to step back and address a question I am often asked. Why am I not a supporter of Senator Obama?

I have been asked that by dozens of White Americans that presume I must be for Obama because he is Black. I have been asked that by almost as many African Americans for the same reasoning. And there are the far smaller group of Americans, of all color and ethnicity, that wonder because they presume I must agree with the Democratic Party policies.

So let me state this clearly, I do not support Senator Barrack Obama at this time. I doubt if I will ever support him. And I disagree with the Democratic policies he supports.

It’s not because I was a democrat and want to switch parties like the bitter Clinton Democrats. They are often White women, upset that a White woman was denied the chance to run for President. Their switch of support, like Debra Bartoshevich, seems like sour grapes more than anything else. And Democrats are responding in kind, splitting their party.



Which leads these Democrats to the right choice for the wrong reason.



Besides the fact that I think Democrats are a split party, created by the Clinton campaign, there are other issues.

Senator Obama has no experience. His own Vice Presidential pick has said he thinks Obama is unqualified. If Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton, agree with Senator John McCain how strong and qualified is Obama?

Senator Obama will be increasing taxes. He has already voted to do so for those making $31,850 or more. My belief he will limit himself to those making an unknown and ambiguous amount qualifying them as rich is shaky at best. His expressed view that businesses, of all sizes, need to pay more in taxes strikes me as harmful to a weak American economy.

Senator Obama has stated often that our dependence on foreign oil is bad. No surprise. Yet he still only considers the idea of domestic drilling. But how else will there be a stopgap to allow us to fund and create alternative energy sources? And his position on oil shale is directly Party line. How about cleaner coal? How about Nuclear energy?

Senator Obama is exclusive in his plans, targeting only the renewable energy plans that benefit stock positions held by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. How is that a grand benefit to America when only options that profit a few are considered? How is that different than the claims made by Democrats that Republicans are in the pocket of big oil, aren’t they in the pocket of Wind and corn ethanol (which has already increased the cost of food)?

Senator Obama has stated he would speak with any threat to America, no matter the provocation. He would speak with Iran, a nation that has sought the wholesale destruction of America and Israel for 30 years now. Like mere words would stop them from their declared God-given need to wipe us off of the earth. Obama is not God, especially to the

Senator Obama would run from Iraq as quickly as possible. There is no consideration for the outcome of such actions. There are no qualms about the probable increased threat to average Americans in their homes. Terrorism has not stopped since 9/11, it just hasn’t hit our homes stateside. But thousands of orphans given no choice and every reason to blame America will grow up looking to kill America. Just as they did at the end of the Gulf War, in 5 – 10 years they will strike American soil after a retreat that will be viewed in the Middle East as a defeat of America, and thus a vindication of Al Quida and other such groups.

Senator Obama wants to give millions the support of the Government. That in itself is not a bad thing, except that it is funded by Americans and perpetuates the ideal that America would rather feed the hungry rather than teach them to fish for themselves. It creates a culture that cannot support itself; and for those that think this means minorities remember that there are more Whites in prison, on welfare, and/or in Government care than all minority groups combined.

As I mentioned the Democratic Party is split. Not on substantive differences – as the voting records of Clinton and Obama are virtually the same. It is split on racial lines, due largely to the efforts of the Clinton campaign.

It is split with a Vice President that disagrees on key issues in a massive manner from the Democratic Presidential nominee he would work for. A VP that would not vote for a less experiences candidate, one that has done less bi-partisan work than he has in a decade. A VP that embodies the ‘old’ politics that Obama has railed against throughout the primaries.

So what makes Senator Obama the right man at this time?

Labels: Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, energy alternatives, Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, tax increase

So just a few quick thoughts about Senator Obama’s comments at the Saddleback Civil Forum.

There were 2 items that stood out in my mind. Darfur and taxes. I am passionate about both and have written a great deal on each subject. So his answers were very important to me.

In terms of taxes I noticed that when Obama was asked to directly quote a single amount that qualifies as rich he could not do so. He in fact avoided the answer. He responded with the answer that if you make $150,000 or less – depending where you live in America – AS A FAMILY then you are most likely middle-class. And he stated that basically if you are a family making $250,000 or more you are in the top 1% of the nation, again depending on where you live. He then promised that families making $150, 000 or less will receive a tax benefit from his tax plans, and those above it will pay more.

That answer is both insufficient and deceptive.

He did not address individuals. Does he mean that $75,000 and less is middle-class? Or under $150,000? Or are you rich? He did not make it clear.

And what if you are a business owner? He wants to increase business taxes; and roughly 60% of businesses in the nation are small-businesses owned by individuals and families. So does he count raising the business tax in his promise to lower taxes of those families as well?

So if we follow what he is saying, and has said, it is very possible that people other than just the ambiguous ‘rich’ will have their taxes increased as well. Which says nothing of the 94 votes he has made to date to increase taxes, including the most recent that would increase taxes of Americans making as little as $31,850.

On top of that is this bit of intuitive thought. America, from a federal tax basis, is not New York City, or Chicago, or Little Rock, or any other region. The IRS does not adjust our taxes based on where your income comes from. The IRS has fixed numbers on what is rich, middle-class, and poor. Any candidate that fails to answer this questions fails to give America a real chance to make a choice.

The other issue that caught my intention is Darfur. When Senator Obama was directly asked about what America should do about places like Darfur where perhaps 1 million men, women and children have died in the last 4+ years – and where America has done nothing (look up the history on HR 180 IH).

Senator Obama completely bypassed Darfur. He went directly to Georgia and other areas. Now I realize that Georgia is a hot topic these days. But this was an opportunity to address a genocide that America has blocked out. I mean a virtually complete major media blackout. And it was a credit to the Minister to bring up the issue as the media has not.

Senator Obama had a chance to go beyond the popular, and to make America aware that if we want to obligate ourselves to international issues, places with no oil and little strategic importance are as valuable as those that do. Simply because there are people, children, that are being murdered – and that is wrong.

Senator Obama failed on that question. That seriously pissed me off.

Now I will be looking forward to the responses of Senator McCain on these same issues.

Labels: Darfur, HR 180 IH, middle class, Saddleback Civil Forum, Senator Barack Obama, tax increase, tax policy

Politics is an amazing arena. It’s the only business in America where lies, misperceptions, misspoken statements, and polispeak are valued assets and critical winning strategies. And that’s true of every political party and elected official from local government to the highest office.

I mention this because of a conversation I had with a woman today. She is interested in getting her voice out to the masses for this election. She believes it to be very important, and thus she is also interested in creating a blog. To that end she contacted me and eventually we discussed the Presidential candidates.

Now in this discussion it came out that she prefers Senator Obama over Senator McCain. There’s nothing wrong with that. When I asked her why, the reasons she gave were very telling. The only reason involving Senator Obama was the fact that he would provide change, every other reason in our 2 hour discussion focused on a belief she had on Senator McCain. I feel that much of what she believed is similar to what others believe as well.

While there is nothing wrong with being for any one candidate, the reasons should be well defined. Let me clarify.

These are the reasons she felt McCain was a bad choice. He is too old, he had cancer, he must suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), he is another President Bush, he is a warmonger (my paraphrase), he is non-partisan, he won’t change anything, and he has a temper. This is the summarized version of her reasons why Obama should be President.

Now while Senator McCain is old, it is well known that he is very physically fit. Many pundits and politicians admit that he is in excellent shape for his age, more than many that are decades his junior. And his genetics – as viewed by looking at his mother who is in her 90’s – show a propensity to remain active and mentally intact for another 20 years. Add to that the fact that Presidents have served at his age before.

And by the way, is Senator McCain is senile for calling Sunnis Shiites, then what is Senator Hillary Clinton when she repeatedly comments on barrel rolling planes and sniper fire that never existed? If that is not senility, or a lie what do you call that? As opposed to mixing up the names of 2 groups of people that most Americans can’t tell you the difference between or even spell.

In looking at his cancer, he had a skin cancer that was non-lethal. It was removed. He is currently free of any cancer and has been for years. There is no reason to believe that he would get cancer again, but there are many politicians that have fought cancer and continued to serve in office. There has been Presidents that have suffered ailments during their Presidency and still governed effectively.

But to combine the 2 questions of age and cancer into one solution, that is why there are Vice-Presidents.

As for being a warmonger, that is a harsh inaccurate and politically driven perception (though again I note that she did not call him that - others I've spoken with have). Groups like Moveon.org and Code Pink may feel that such a title may applie to McCain, but then again they felt the same about Senator Clinton and EVERY other politician that has not advocated the immediate retreat from Iraq. It would be far more accurate to say that as a former military officer, a decorated veteran, and a former POW Senator McCain has a far greater appreciation of what it means to fight for our country than most politicians or civilians. Considering that he has a son that has actively served in Iraq recently, he appreciates as much as any parent the fears of an active war. Thus I am left to conclude that if he believes that it is important for America to win if possible, and/or to exit in a manageable manner – and is willing to risk his own son – that he believes such steps are in the nations best interest long-term.

It’s well known that Senator John McCain has a temper. He has had words with many Senators and politicians over his 25 years of political service. Then again so have many Presidents. In fact it is now more publicly acknowledged that President Clinton had a horrible temper. According to Dick Morris, who used to work for President Clinton, he was struck in anger by the President. Since Mr. Morris said this on national cable television and has not been sued or asked to retract his statement I am led to believe it was true. So we have evidence that recent Presidents have tempers, which did not prevent them from their duties.

To go back to the military past of Senator McCain, which Senator Obama has never had a day of, I was told he had to have PTSD. This was a point that was brought up multiple times. The woman I spoke with could not see how anyone that went through what McCain has could not be so afflicted. Yet in 25 years in the Senate there has been no incidence ever reported. Not one politician, of either party, or an aide has ever noted anything that would be likened to PTSD. I wouldn’t say that McCain never has a bad memory, but like many veterans he has lived a productive life without incident. So why is that a fear? PTSD is not like LSD. It doesn’t suddenly crop up one morning with a cup of coffee. There are symptoms and signs. This is what my father dealt with, and as a man that did have PTSD, suffered from Agent Orange, and lost an arm and leg most would never have been able to tell as he worked on his small farm and daily interactions. But when things were bad, there were always signs.

Suffice to say that I feel this is an unwarranted and probably politically motivated issue.

I’ll combine the question of whether McCain is another President Bush and whether he is non-partisan. Don’t take my word on this but look back a year and a half. Look back 2 years. Read how the liberal media lauded Senator McCain, and Republican were angry with him, for breaking party lines on various issues. Look at how the media positively covered McCain as the most bi-partisan Republican and as the kind of Republican Democrats could work with. Look at the multiple laws he has passed and tried to pass. Count the number of times McCain was called a moderate, and conservative groups that backed President Bush whole-heartedly were angry with McCain.

The fact is that the main thing that has changed is the media and pundit perception of Senator McCain. What he did has not changed, but the perception has been molded by the media, just in time for people who don’t follow politics daily to just notice.

Last is change. Everyone is speaking about change. Which is just dumb. No matter who is elected change is guaranteed. Neither man is President Bush so change is a fact.

But on one hand we have a candidate without experience (relatively) as compared to one with over 3 decades of service to the nation. Of course I was told that Senator Obama can surround himself with people that have experience and he can make decisions based on their knowledge.

So why is McCain faulted for his experience, and that of those he would have around him, since Senator Obama would be drawing from a pool of politician that are just as embedded in “old” politics as McCain? The only real difference is that McCain has his own experience to balance against the opinions of those around him, and Obama does not.

Now I don’t fault anyone for picking any candidate. I am happy that many are getting involved because I agree that this is an important election. But I want to emphasize something. Picking a candidate based on current soundbites and a set of rules that apply only one way is not picking a candidate that is in the best interest of America.

Check the facts, learn about the candidates for yourself. Look at the vote where Senator Obama voted to raise the taxes of everyone making $31,850 or more (and Senator McCain voted against) and ask if that is rich. Ask why every multi-millionaire and billionaire that advocates higher taxes have never given a single extra dollar to the government than they were required to – in fact a few have preferred to give their money to charities instead. Ask how Senator Obama will pass bi-partisan laws with a record of voting highly partisan and liberal. Ask if you prefer a President that is historically moderate or liberal – with a populace that in all honesty is middle of the road depending on the issue.

If you look for those facts, and ignore the pundits and polispeak; if you ask those questions and come to an answer for yourself, then that is who you should vote for. And it’s when you vote on that basis that America will truly get the best choice for America’s future.

Labels: 2008 election, Code Pink, moveon.org, Polispeak, President Bush, Presidential candidates, PTSD, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, tax increase

Sometimes I just have to wonder what liberals are thinking. Today I noticed a news program that was discussing the issue of the birthright of getting a college education. The implication was that Senator Obama will provide government funding to enable every student to go to college. That isn’t exactly true of what Senator Obama has said, and it has so many problems that it’s a joke.

First, let’s be honest. College and higher education is not a birthright. It’s an option. Millions live and work everyday without one. The obligation of the government is to provide a basic education to the children of the nation. It is the obligation of parents to make sure that their child uses that education to their benefit. And it is a step towards adulthood for that child to determine if college is a path they wish to take.

Even more honest is the fact that every child should not go to college. Seriously, your kid may not be the next lawyer, doctor, or college graduate. You probably know if little johnnie or jane is not going to get there long before they reach 12th grade. And that’s not a bad thing. The military is not for everyone, neither is being a policeman, a doctor, an accountant, a salesman, a scientist and so on.

Many liberals love to point out that college tuitions have grown over the last 5 years. They point out that many families can afford college. The first point is true, just as the cost of a car, home, and dozens of other products/services have grown as well. But these same liberals leave out the fact that while most families can’t afford Ivy league colleges there are city colleges, state colleges, and junior colleges that are easily more affordable. Add to that the fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of grants and scholarships that go unused every year. Money is out there for virtually every kind of student, and colleges make huge efforts to help students afford the cost of higher learning.

When I went to college I had a scholarship. I also worked 2 part-time jobs. So did dozens of my friends. It was my responsibility to earn or borrow the money I needed to gain the education I wanted. Had I spent more time in the library I could have gotten even more money.

Some will say that college should be easier. Why? Is life easier? Is work easier? Is raising a family or being in a marriage easy? The fact is that the things that are least easy are what we all tend to want most. We appreciate what we earn and sweat for. Give a person a fish and they’ll wait for another, teach them to fish and they will work to make sure they are not hungry.

Now Senator Obama believes that the student aid form is what is preventing kids from going to college. I believe that if filling out a piece of paper is too difficult, you shouldn’t be considering college anyway. So it’s a long form, so is a mortgage or car loan. So is building up an IRA or retirement fund. I don’t care if the form takes a day to fill out, that’s one day out of a life filled with greater knowledge than the day before.

“Another common reason that high school students decide not to attend college is that they discover they are
unprepared for it in 12th grade.”

You have to be kidding right? If you have been getting D’s and C’s all your time in school I think you know long before 12th grade that you will not be going to college. If you prefer to watch a movie based on a book instead of reading for a school report, college is not for you. If you can rebuild an engine and could care less who Nicholas of Cusa is, college is out. If you spend summer vacations building decks for friends and family, or working in the garment industry making marker – and the concept of how an extra hydrogen atom can attach a water molecule puts you to sleep – college may not be an option. [And I spent every summer from junior high school until I left college working in the garment industry]

Now here is another interesting thought. If Senator Obama were to provide funds for every child in America to go to college, where is that money coming from? College will still need to be paid for, so who will pay it? You will. It’s called higher taxes. Which means you will have less money, whether you have kids or not or whether your kids goes to college or if your kid is able to finish with a degree. If you feel you don’t have enough money to live on now, wait till you have to pay for your neighbors kid to go to college – you know the kid that can’t give you back the right change in Mc Donald’s even with the cash register figuring it out for them. That’s money that is well spent indeed.

But there is a bigger issue that few even consider. America needs skilled labor. Carpenters, truck drivers, machinists and more. As much as the information highway has grown, the basics are still out there. There are no machines or internet programs that will build a house. Or fix plumbing. Or drive a dump truck. Or dig in a mine. And we are running out of those types of laborers. There is such an emphasis on trying to get every child to be a computer geek, or a trial lawyer and so on that everyone forgets that someone has to build the wires, lay the cable, and maintain it for you to get an internet connection or even lights. And you don’t need college degrees for that.

Now I believe in the importance of a higher education. I believe that you should go to college. But only if you want it. Only if you strive for it. Only if you will make it count for something. Otherwise it’s just high school part 2.

Something that my father once told me I feel applies here. He said,

“No matter what you do, if you do a good days work and get a good days pay you can hold your head high in front of anyone.”

I believe that. I’ve held my head high as I swept floors, pulled out garbage, worked as a telephone operator, in a bindery department, a telemarketer, a bar back, a DJ, a bartender, a 3rd line cook, a busboy, a security guard, a stockbroker, a lab assistant, a director of operations in import/export, a writer, and over 155 other positions (of which I have never been fired and have had over 66 promotions). It’s not what you do, it’s why you do it and what goals you put in place for your life.

College has been very important for me. I continue to read and learn. It helps me understand the various issues I discuss in numerous blogs I write for. It helps me understand the ramifications and obfuscated meanings in politics and political speeches. It helps me expand my mind and imagine the improbabilities of the universe. But that’s not for everyone, and I don’t need to pay for anyone to reach that level unless I choose to do so.

When I went to college a very good teacher did me a kindness, sending me a few dollars every so often. He wasn’t obligated to do so, he did it because I had shown my desire to learn in high school. It wasn’t much, but it meant a lot – because he didn’t need to do it. That gave me a reason to strive harder. But it would have meant nothing if everyone in America was paying for my education and I had nothing invested in it.

So again I say, liberals need to think about some of the things they say they want. College is a great thing, and helping some get there is good. But lets be realistic, it’s not for everyone. I don’t want to pay higher taxes to waste my money and some kids’ time on a useless venture.

Labels: college tuition, education, IRA, retirement plans, scholarships, Senator Barack Obama, tax increase

So now we have the major news media jumping all over the words of Senator Obama. This time it’s in reference to his elitist comments about how small town voters across America seem to feel and are acting. While the comments are harsh, there is some truth in them.

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Barack Obama

Having lived some 5 years no in a small town (that residents of the area consider a city for some reason) I have noticed that many are clinging and bitter. There is no question that in this town with approximately 6% non-whites and a large community of college students, there are bitter feelings. The average income is about $28,000 and jobs are scarce. Most jobs pay minimum wage, the downtown district is littered with empty buildings, and more than just a few homes are in disrepair even in the best neighborhoods.

There is a huge hunting community though, and there are an abundance of churches and church groups. The main activity outside of these events is drinking. In a recent article in the local paper there was a story (during Black History month) describing that one of the local major companies recruited new workers and when asked what the recreational activities were in the area they stated ‘there are a lot of bars’. Such is this small town in central New York, and that is better than the surrounding smaller towns and villages.

That says nothing of the rampant racism and prejudice. I have heard numerous stories from non-whites over the years, and experienced several myself. From failure to be served for over 15 minutes only to be skipped over to serve a White patron that walked up, to being called the N-word for speaking to a White person of the opposite sex, to having a drunk guy picking a fight – using the N-word to provoke the situation – and being told at the end that it was due to dressing better than those around [which happened to me]. Binghamton is a city dying for lack of good jobs, lack of foresight from the city council, and the failure of Senator Clinton to live up to her promise to generate 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York [in fact upstate New York has lost 30,000 jobs since she has been elected].

So is Senator Obama wrong in what he said? From what I have seen here and in the area, no. The citizenry is quite bitter and angry. They want to see less jobs going overseas, fewer immigrants keeping job wages down, and virtually hate anyone – especially of color – that is living here and doing better. Mind you that is not everyone here, but it is more than enough to make things uncomfortable is you walk into the wrong place on the wrong day.

But let’s consider this. If Senator Obama is out of touch or as Senator Clinton states

“I do not think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you, and not looks down on you," said Hillary Clinton. "And after seven years of Americans feeling invisible to this president, President Bush, it is time that we leveled the playing field.”

Is Senator Clinton better?

Well we know as fact that she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Sinbad and videotaped footage of the event have proven that – thus it’s not a misspoken statement as the polispeak would have you believe. We know that she had no impact or input to the Ireland peace talks, those who did have told us about that lie as well.

We know that in the 7+ years that Senator Clinton has been representing New York State she has lied about new jobs, and her voting record reflects changing polls consistently. We know Senator Clinton is against guns, in speeches and votes. We know that the Clinton campaign has consistently and directly, in the form of Bill Clinton, used race as a factor in generating votes. The Clinton campaign has directly pandered gender as a solitary reason for votes. Is this “standing up” or “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?

But perhaps most important is her connection to the people. Senator Clinton, along with former President Bill Clinton, made $109 million. They paid only $34 million in taxes. That may be a lot, but it is far less than the highest tax bracket so they took tax breaks available to them. They also donated $10 million to charity – the Clinton Library – in effect giving them a tax break and keeping the money. All from those that claim that the rich (which she obviously qualifies as) don’t pay enough in taxes and voted to increase the taxes paid of everyone making $31,850 or more (which I know none that would qualify this as rich).

Now both of the Democratic candidates have gone to good colleges and have law degrees. Senator Clinton spent her time after graduating on the board of Wal-Mart (which has fought unions – a big issue for Democrats) and being the wife of a rising political husband. Senator Obama spent his time working for the Chicago community and entering politics at the state level. Which sounds like it benefits the average guy more? Which sounds closer, since neither is similar, to the life average Joe lives?

Of course if we were to really be fair about this Senator McCain really stands out. While his wife does have wealth, he was a soldier. While he was an officer and a pilot, he did serve his nation at a time of war, and stood by his fellow soldiers while having years of torture. He has served the public for 25 years, longer than some of my readers have been alive. He has never lied about being shot at, nor has he made a donation to a charity he runs. He has not voted to raise taxes of those that are obviously in the middle class (though he did balk initially at giving them a tax cut). He is not known for looking down at anyone, though he is known for his temper. But he is also known for breaking party lines to make deals he feels benefit the American public – which the Democratic candidates have not done, ever.

So really, who sounds like they are looking down on the average American? Who is the least connected? Who has lied the least – or as the spin likes to say “misspoke”. Who has stood their ground and served the public the most, or in other word has experience?

Obviously for the Republicans that is Senator McCain. For the Democrats I leave the choice to you, based on the facts. And as for the election, well that is your choice. No matter what you believe, your vote makes a difference. If we all are involved, since we all will live with the results, then I believe we will get the best choice for America. But if not, there will be no way to explain the next 4 years in some polispeak spin of “misspoke” or “mistake”.

Labels: Binghamton NY, Chicago, Democratic Party, middle class, President Bill Clinton, Republican Party, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, tax increase, Wal-Mart

**Just a quick hello to all those visiting this site from TV One. I hope you enjoy the various posts and visit/comment often.**


So as we approach the next vote in the Democratic Primary process, little new events or information has been passed on to the public. With the Republican race over, Senator John McCain has begun to collect monies and release television commercials emphasizing his experience both as a Senator and military commander. On the Democratic side, substance has been replaced in part by hype obfuscating points that I find far more interesting.

Even today this malaise can be seen in the questions being posed to General Petraeus by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats are pushing that the events in Iraq are not working, that there is no end in sight ever, that the war is unwinnable, and that the only solution is to run. Republicans are thanking the service and sacrifice given, acknowledgement of the benchmarks reached, understanding of the progress and stability that has been attained, and the outlook for a measured end of the conflict. Politics are clouding every fact, effectively using our soldiers as political tools in all the polispeak.

But the bigger issues that are not being discussed as much as they should include Senator McCain’s potential choice of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as Vice-President. Back in February I noted that she was at 10-1 odds for gaining the coveted position.

“I expect that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the real favorite. She brings in some of the Black and women vote. And she is easily qualified for the position. I see the Democrats seriously troubled in trying to attack her on anything. My dream pick would be Colin Powell though.”

The implications of Secretary of State Rice as V-P are far reaching especially in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign relations, and the economy. Considering the emphasis on race relations lately, there is also the potential of improving the laws affecting African Americans. Women’s issues are also potentially on the forefront of change.

Glancing at the Democrats, Senator Hillary Clinton dominates the landscape. Not that this is a good thing.

Besides the fact that Senator Clinton is trying to duck the fact that 3 senior campaign members are connected to pro-Columbia efforts (of which only Mark Penn has been fired for) which she publicly denounces, there are less emphasized issues as well. One big fact I have a problem with is the Clinton taxes.

The Clintons made $109 million, paid $34 million in taxes, and $10 million to charity.

Sounds nice until you pay attention to the details. The first is the fact that 34% is not the top tax bracket, meaning that the Clinton’s took many deductions. That is not important, except it is a major campaign point for the Democrats. That is that the “rich” – which I think $109 million qualifies as – do not pay enough in taxes. Yet rather than paying the full taxes, or giving the I.R.S. extra money as a gift, the Clinton’s paid less. So either the Clinton campaign is lying about wanting to take more money from the rich – but since she voted to increase taxes of everyone from $31,850 and above I doubt that, her money is excluded, or she only thinks that the money should be taken by certain people for certain needs of the government. That last reason is hardly Democratic, fair, or in the benefit of the public.

Add to this the fact that former-President Bill Clinton collected $191,000 a year as part of his retirement package as President. That’s tax-payer money being given (wasted) to a millionaire. And rather than denying the money, of not cashing the check, they kept it (and that money is not taxable as I recall). How many people that money might help is unknown, but even if it were to help just one family who do you think needs the money more.

Oh and by the way, the 10% given to charity (which is a write-off) is important too. Because according to at least Dick Morris – a former top political aide of the Clinton’s – every dime of that was given to the Clinton Library. Which is controlled by guess who, and thus usable in any manner they desire.

Like Bosnia, Ireland, and many other issues, it’s a lie and slap in the face of the American citizenry.

And now I come to Senator Obama. There really isn’t much new with him, except his friends. One is Rev. Wright, who continues to be attacked unfairly by the major media. Weeks later the questions and opinions of the polispeak compilation of 10 second clips from less than a handful of the over 1000 sermons made by Rev. Wright are cascading forth having ebbed only slightly. Thus the single most difficult obstacle to the nomination is visibly what it was invisibly a year ago, skin color. And this will be re-visited at some point and some degree if Senator Obama is nominated.

The other friend of note is a real concern in my opinion. That is the former Weatherman and ultra liberal. A self-admitted bomber of American citizens and soil. A declared friend of Senator Obama. That troubles me.

But the real question for him is only the one issue that he can do nothing about. His race. He is not Black enough for small minds like Rev. Manning and other racist bigots – in my opinion. He is too Black for the Clinton campaign and those with ears too gentle to hear honest commentary about race relations in America.

Sadly the real question should be is a Presidential candidate without experience what America needs during a time of war.

But not to worry. CNN, Fox News and the rest have spent the day covering General Petreaus being questioned in a manner to benefit the polispeak political aspirations of the various parties, ultimately at a cost to our soldiers. No matter what view you may have, this PT Barnum extravaganza fails them first and everyone second.

Just remember in the remaining primaries and the general election in November 2008, that the questions being avoided are perhaps the best reasons to vote and whom for.

Labels: Condolezza Rice, Democratic, Iraq War, Polispeak, racial controversy, republican, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, tax increase, Vice President

So I’ve been quite busy in the past week creating 40 blogs and a few search engines for a client of mine. It would seem the timing was perfect as there has really been nothing new in the political news. Every candidate seems to be stuck in the mire of the problems from a week or 2 ago.

There is the problem of Senator Obama with Rev. Wright. This is not going to go away, and you can bet on it being an issue in the general election. I’ve already said that this is really not something I think that should be such an issue. In reviewing some of the video that Rev. Wright had used against him, much of what he said was not untrue or offensive. It was just not nice to White Americans or the Government.

Now I know that there is now news that Rev. Wright has written pro-Hamas comments. I have yet to read this. But, sight unseen, I would guess that like the highly selective 10 second clips used to attack the reverend there is a high probability that these comments may be few in number, and contain a high percentage of truth. That is not to say I agree with all of what he says, just that the 30 seconds of coverage the news media is giving to Rev. Wright is highly biased. As many who have read my Black Entertainment USA blog know, I believe that a medium that purposefully minimized the existence and representation of all non-whites to roughly 2% of their population – mostly in a negative exposure – is biased.

But again I ask the real question that the news media seems to avoid as they inject race into this Presidential election. Does the voting record of Senator Obama reflect the negatives that the news media is focusing on? In my research the answer is no. In fact, Senator Obama’s voting record is nearly identical to Senator Clinton’s. So there seems to be no reason to be any more or less for Senator Obama than before this publicly reviewed relation to a former Marine, clergyman, and activist for the poor, lesbian/gay, and African Americans.

As for Senator Clinton, well she is still a liar. And she is still caught in the fact that her trip to Bosnia was a direct lie. A person can misspeak about a date or time, a name or place, even how well someone reacts in a situation. But saying you are being shot at and that you and your child were essentially racing for your life is a life-altering event that no one would forget. Like being in the Northridge earthquake.

Here is an example. I liked in California and was in the Northridge quake. My home was roughly 5 miles away from the epicenter. I may be misspeaking the distance to the center. But when I tell you that the quake started like a jackhammer going off at your feet, and then grew to feel and sound like a freight train inches away from your face – that is a description of a life-altering event. I may misspeak how long the initial quake lasted, which felt like 5 minutes at the time, but I and describing a life-altering event that every 3 minutes on the minute the quake had an aftershock. And the fact that I and 2 other friends were so afraid that slamming a door shut caused us to jump for about 2 days after the fact is confirmable by at least 6 people, and in no way is exclusive. That is a life-altering event. Senator Clinton lied.

But I am not surprised. And it is important. Unlike the separation of Senator Obama and Rev. Wright – as seen in his actual voting record – Senator Clinton lied to the nation repeatedly (at least 3 xs). She has sought sympathy and endearment. She is trying to create courage and importance. And it is all just a false façade to gain votes.

Just as her lie about affecting the Ireland Peace Talks was proven false, so has video about Bosnia proven her a liar. And Sinbad broke the story, not the news media that would have let the story stand if he did not publicly challenge her.

Now there are many reasons to vote for or against any candidate. I’ve detailed many over the past 2 years on all the candidates. But there are a few things that I think everyone can agree are not qualities wanted in a potential President.

We do not want a President that is a criminal nor aids and abets a criminal. So far as has been proven only one candidate has done this. Senator Clinton. The criminal was Norman Hsu, whom she took $1 million from to aid her campaign and struggled to avoid giving back to his victim (the money was stolen – which were separate new charges for Hsu).

We do not want a President that lies to the American public. Senator McCain may make momentary mistakes between the name of Iran and Iraq – which every person discussing the 2 has done in conversation, Senator Obama may not have been at every one of the sermons that Rev. Wright made (3x a week for 20 years). Maybe hearing a rant against the nation (like the ones made by Jerry Falwell after 9/11) or against a group of people (like the claims about AIDS made by Pat Robertson) is not something someone would want to admit – like being caught cheating on a wife. But to stand in front of the American people and to repeatedly and directly lie is wrong.

When President Bush stated America needed to remove the weapons of mass destruction he lied (to some degree) and that has created huge resentment in America and at least some of the Democrats. When former-President Bill Clinton stated under oath and on television broadcasts to the nation that he did not have sexual relations with Monika Lewinsky he lied. And when Senator Hillary Clinton made up events in Ireland and Bosnia she has lied about her ability, courage, and experience. If a Republican, Democrat or Independent was upset and livid about the first 2 events and wished they could take back their vote from those 2 Presidents – why would any voter elect a potential candidate that has proven a willingness to repeatedly and unabashedly lie to America??

We do not want a President that will take our money and/or waste it. No one likes to pay taxes. Nor does anyone I know enjoy watching their money go to individuals that do nothing deserving of those tax dollars being spent on them. Yet in an economy that is obviously troubled (at the least) Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have voted to increase taxes for those making $31,850 or more. This increase does not account for creating a universal socialized healthcare system (which will cost taxpayers and individuals more), the wars in Iraq or Iran, or the mortgage crisis. So imagine that as jobs become harder to get, in an economic slowdown where fewer new jobs will be created, more taxes will be imposed on taxpayers and small businesses.

Imagine what will happen if all the social programs that Democrats wish to put in place become fact, and wages go up, while there is less income available to pay bills and smaller businesses that cannot afford the taxes or employee wages go out of business – firing even more people.

These are the issues that face the next President. And there are more issues, like education for our kids, the number of illegal aliens in the nation, and security of our homes. That is where the focus should be for this election. Instead we are hearing about the comments of a non-elected official, momentary misquotes in a live conversation, and ignoring the breadth and depth of lies.

Well I have at least another 40 blogs to create. So I will be a bit slow on posts, by no means am I forgetting to write. Maybe by my birthday, in a week and a half, the news media will focus on the important facts.

Labels: Bosnia, Ireland, Norman Hsu, President Bush, Presidential election race 2008, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Sinbad, tax increase

As the Dow Jones Index tumbles again, down some 200 points today, I had to look back on some of the things I’ve said recently. I can’t say I am surprised at the condition of the market, nor the outlook being discussed now. On reflecting I found that I mentioned many of these things back in November 2007.

“The Fed's huge new credit facility, announced on Tuesday, "can help in a rather small way ... but the underlying risks will remain with the institutions that borrow from the Fed, and this does nothing to change their capital," National Bureau of Economic Research President Martin Feldstein noted.

And I stated.

“I had a friend recently ask me what I thought would be happening to the economy, and my answer was it’s going to get bad. Perhaps recession bad. And I added that the current group of Democratic candidates may only make it worse.

I say this because of several factors. Not the least of which are, the housing crisis, the financial sector, the cost of oil, and potential tax ramifications based on the current plans announced by candidates.”

Perhaps I was too general. Maybe I could have been more clear.

“One broker, whom I respect and consider quite sharp [even when I disagree], had an interesting comment on my predictions. I believe that the move to junk rating of ACA, the probable $6 - 12 billion loss at JP Morgan [significantly higher than expected], eventual losses from Citigroup - which reinsures itself, oil breaking $100 a barrel, and the multiple overseas investments will all hit the market in mid-January 2008. Thus I think a move to 11,000 is more than probable.”

Maybe if could have seen what would be the effects

“The facts are that China and India need gold. Even in a global slowdown their demand has increased pressure on supply. Recession and inflation fears and a lagging stock market in the United States have not diminished though they are not leading world headlines this moment. Oil prices are foreseeable going to continue higher and place more pressure on world economies, especially if OPEC cuts production rates as expected. And the prospect of a Democratic President in America is generally seen as a negative for the stock market, further spurring a move to gold to hedge investments.”

Fine, all that having been said at points in the past, what do I have to say now?

We need to see the stock market crash. Seriously it needs to drop to my target of 11,000 I called for in 2007. And every single action by the Fed and Congress to stop this will only create a bigger and longer lasting problem.

At the moment the Government is trying to create an artificial floor for the market. The reason is to give investors a false sense of hope and a bit of political momentum. Neither is worth the problem it is creating. The Fed has reacted too slowly and in moderation thus not correcting any of the liquidity issues. Huge rate cuts may look impressive, but since they don’t have an effect for months if not a year, the short-term effect is windowdressing. A series of stagard smaller cuts (started far earlier) over a period of time is far more effective.

Injecting money into the pockets of citizens is also a waste of money. The momentum and problems are not with people failing to buy things, it’s with the cost of the things being purchased. If oil costs are up 40% then there is just that much less to spend in a discrectionary manner.

Giving people money in the middle of chaos means that the money will either go to pay immediate bills or stashed away for the possible immediate need to pay a bill. Rather, let the emotion and the weakness in the market play out and then give the stimulus. Otherwise you are throwing money down a drain hoping it will eventually clog if you dump enough. And we are weakening the dollar in the process, which hurts the very economy we are trying to fix.

The financials are not done with the mortgage crisis. Some would like to divert attention from this, but the fact is that we are still in the crisis. And a great number of people will lose their homes. The housing market will have it’s crash, which is long overdue, and credit will be harder to get. All of which is normal.

For too long people have had too much credit without any security to back it on. A full generation of young adults have grown up thinking that this was the norm. We need this correction to get back to reality.

Want lower oil prices? Develop new sources of energy. Not because it’s an ecological thing to do, or because of some nightmare dreamed up based on barely enough information to make an estimate on. We need to do it because it will create jobs that can’t be exported, will lower dependance on oil, and infuse the economy with cash. It also means that the equity structure of the market will change, several blue chips will lose value and new ones will be created. Such is a dynamic market, which we don’t have now.

Gold will strike my target of $125 and oil $1125 this year. And they will both do so far faster than I expected if we continue to weaken the dollar and fix they symptoms and not the problem. Loss is part of an investment, as is long-term gain based on fundementals. To try to prevent one prevents the other.

This will feel bad, and unemployment may hit, gasp, 8%. 30 years ago that was a massive win. And it’s not a bad thing. If we aren’t throwing money at the public because they aren’t as comfortable as they were 5 years ago. If politicians had balls they would say this. Social entitlements should only be for those in need, not thouse that need to want.

The end of the 1st quarter will be another round of write-off for financials. And the market will continue to flounder as they try to stabilize their losses. At least one major financial will fail (actually will be forced to merge because they are too big to fail). And at 11,000 the market will stabilize and slowly rise. Growth will begin at that point at a moderate and unimpressive 1% or 7% in the market.

If gold moves as I expect, and the Government stops wasting money in stimulus plans, then there will be a sale in the commodity and an influx in the market. If wind and solar get a few positive laws there will be a spur in that arena and oil will drop slightly after hitting my target. IF taxes are increased, as was voted on yesterday, then the problem will extend into 2009 3rd quarter.

Patience, calm and paying attention to the underlying fundementals will do investors and homeowners more good than cutting rates and suggesting purchases of new Ipods that people can’t afford to have anyway. Shifting energy plans away from ethanol, which is driving up food prices and thus inflation, is also smart.

What will I do with my $600 from the Government stimulus plan? Leave it in the bank until I have a bigger purchase item I need for my business. I’ve already cleared my debt, and keep minimal revolving credit. My investments are balanced and long-term so the current moves don’t faze me. Unlike the Governments rush to do something – even if they have no idea what to rush and do, I have a plan and that allows me to sit and wait to see what happens.

So now you have my thoughts. I’ve factored in the lower refining levels due to the accident earlier this year. I’ve factored in the lesser supply of gold from South Africa, and the Olympics in China. I’ve looked at the real estate market, and the Dow Jones. So until the Dow hits 11,000 (plus minus 100 points or so – I’m not that good) oil and gold rise further and we enter the 3rd quarter it’s just time to accept the pain. But I’m sure this being an election year all of that will get mucked up by political ambitions.

We shall see.

Labels: China, Crude oil prices, Dow Jones Index, economic forecasts, ethanol, gold spot prices, green energy usage, mortgage crisis, Olympic games, tax increase

How rich do you feel if you are making $31,850 or more?

If you are like most families and individuals in America, I imagine that you don’t. In fact I would say most would feel relatively poor. Not because of a lack of luxury items or failing in a competition with the Jones’ but because of a scarcity of essentials and a knowledge that loss of everything is possible.

Americans in the middle class don’t feel rich because they are the ones losing their homes to the mortgage crisis. They are the ones incapable of affording better colleges (or sometimes any college) for their children. They are the families most often without healthcare coverage and unable to afford medical costs.

And they are the ones that are going to feel even worse if Democrats, and the Presidential candidates Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, get their way. I don’t say this because of some ideal, or dedication to the Republican Party. I say this because that is exactly what they are voting for.

“Senators voted 52-47 to reject a move to extend tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.”

and

“Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.”

So, if you make $31,850 or more you may not feel like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett but you are going to get taxed like them.

This is not a surprise because for all the statements by Democrats that running scared from Iraq will turn the economy around, and their implication that universal healthcare is the same thing as free health care the facts are that more money will come out of our pockets to pay for it all. Your pocket, whether or not any of the things you will be paying for will provide a single benefit for you or those you know.

This is what a Democratic President will provide. Some may believe that this is a small price to pay. Some may believe that all businesses should pay more in taxes. And some may believe that terrorists and those hostile to the existence of America will give up their fights just because we turn our backs.

But I believe that increasing the taxes that the middle-class and businesses pay will not improve the economy. I believe that giving money TO problems rather than spending money to FIX the problems is foolish. I believe that turning your back on a bar fight will get your head cracked open from a chair smashed upon it. I believe that nothing is free, and some things are too expensive to be worthwhile.

The Democratic candidates have marched across America saying they will only tax the rich. They have said that they will only affect big business. They have said that they will make America safer. All are great things. But the facts of their actions indicate they are lying if not confused.

“Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.”

So here is the big question for the up-coming election. If you aren’t rich at $31,850 and the Democrats are going to increase your taxes, what other plan proposed by them is equally skewed to your disadvantage?

Labels: American economy, Bill Gates, college tuition, Democratic Party, Iraq War, mortgage crisis, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, tax increase, tax rates, universal healthcare, Warren Buffett